"In Bill Bonner's recent book (Empire of Debt), he makes some amazes connections between failed empires and inflation/expansion. Society collapsed when government takes advantage of those in society -- overregulates, overtaxes, and overinflates the currency base. I agree with Bonner."
I'll have to read it. Although, I do have to say, that government just provides the structure for individuals to profit at the expense of the greater good -- I think on this point we agree. We just disagree on the fundamental aspects of government, that is, whether it's "us" -- meaning everyone or "them" -- meaning the aristocracy. If government was not a tool for the arist., I think we wouldn't see the same problems.
"We're constantly changing our lives to better them -- and if that means we make it worse for the next generation, they'll find ways to innovate and survive and grow wealthier and happier"
While I agree that typically what you are saying is true, I think that the next generation is not always able to adapt. I hate to go back to the same source, but I think that Diamond shows this to be true. Of course, in this day and age of instant information and global transport, does it still apply? Pretty much, there would have to be semi-global disaster/drought/etc in order for the next generation not to be able to adapt. I think it's possible, especially if everyone is acting on an individual basis.
Another issue is that without government restriction, people won't always be doing what's best for them individually. Instead, people will be doing what's best for the company they work for -- which is not necessarily what's best for the individual or the society. Self-determinism doesn't always work when your options are severely limited. This is made worse by the fact that individuals act without perfect information. Yes, information access is better now than ever before -- but it's not ideal, especially since many people don't bother to get the information. PR/Campaigning/etc exacerbate this.
"It never happens, and things actually get better."
I think a lot of that is because of (1) Preventative action and (2) Bad hypotheses. If things get bad enough, people take action (reduction of CFCs, or water pollution controls, for examples). Without government, I think we'd have a worse problem with the O3 layer, and with potable/fishable water supplies.
Re:Doomsday can come only from governments
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"So many problems we face today (war, empire expansion, taxation, regulations and licensing) can be solvd by keeping government away from fiat currency control -- ie a gold standard."
So, you mean a world gold standard? If so, then we'd have states vying for control of a finite resource, while giving preferential status to those states capable of producing gold. If anything, we'd see worse manipulation of currency, since fewer players would have input. You're just replacing one type of currency manipulation with another. Look at the economic problems the gold rush in the US caused. "The Age of Gold" by HW Brands treats this subject, albeit tangentially.
"I find that the best way to value oil prices is by investigating what the use of that oil produced."
Sure, you want to look at oil cost of production, but the "price of oil" is not the same thing. What currency stabilization does is allow the price of oil to approximate oil cost of production (since the $ is theoretically tied to production), which is why everyone talks about oil in terms of USD (or soon, EUR, which is one reason why US Oil Cos. were happy we invaded Iraq... ask me if you want more info on that).
"This leads me to believe that the cartels in control have better knowledge of the situation than the so called experts."
There is nothing to say that we wouldn't be in even better shape if the cartels weren't in control. Also, the cartels haven't always done exactly as they pleased; so under the current situation, we have the cartels in control but influenced by other actors.
Again though, a problem we have is that extrapolating past history to fossil fuels assumes that we'll have the similar market conditions, which I think is a big problem. FF supply is not infinite, getting more expensive as we have to hit up less easily availabe resevoirs -- supply is finite. Furthermore, a lot of the world's political structure is dependent on current FF production/consumption; when we shift away from FF, there will be upheaval. Will states, and societies, adapt? Sure -- but it won't be painless.
I can't see a gold standard helping the situation much at all. I'm not a pure Keynesian, but I can't see how preventing states from taking action to stabilize their currency (and thus preventing self-feeding recessions) will result in a net increase in QOL, or even productivity, in the long run. Say naturally occurring drough or climate change caused major decreases in food production in the Western US -- how would a gold standard prevent inflation, when production drops while currency remains constant? And how would a gold standard keep that inflation from further reducing production? It's a downward spiral that would eventually result in revolution, IMO.
Thanks -- wasn't sure on how weak the broadcast was, and whether it was possible to read at a distance. Would weaker broadcasts (with accordingly more sensitive readers) be possible, so that max read distance would be a few centimeters?
"We have enough usable land, because every year advances in agricultural technology increase crop yields per unit area (selective breeding, genetic engineering, GPS-based micro-adjustments of field fertilization and drip irrigation)."
Increased productivity has been happening since the dawn of farming. Despite this, entire civilizations have collapsed, because those advances have not kept up with population growth (sometimes due to consequences of farming).
Also, the amount of usable land is not constant; it is decreasing, a lot of which (maybe all) is due to human action. Regardless of how productive a parcel of land is, it does you no good if you've got high levels of arsenic in the soil. Throw in salinization, erosion, and all the other reasons we're losing arable land, and there is a concern that there will need to be a "population adjustment" in the next century or centuries. Whether through war, famine, etc, those adjustments are never popular (sorry about the pun) and political upheaval is likely.
Re: fuel, I tend to agree with you -- except that there is risk of catastrophe involved, as well as issues with spent fuel containment. I think we'll figure that one out, though it may be a painful conversion.
"but it is still cheaper than it has been in the past 150 years on average"
I'm interested in how much of that is due to extremely low supply in the 19th century, especially as compared to the availability of gold. Also, how do you calculate average? Is it weighted by quantity, or perhaps by GDP or by population? How do you define price in your calculations? IMO, you should even be considering the price of oil in your calculations until the late 1940s, since the model was completely different prior to that.
"Prices always drop, except (again) when government manipulates markets and currencies."
I don't think you can apply Simon's maxim here; oil is a commodity product that does not have infinite supply (which Simon assumes in his calculations, since his calculations and prjections are based on historical figures where limited supply was NOT an issue).
"Heading back to the gold standard would do wonders for the first government that dumps fiat currency. "
I keep reading comments where you make this claim, even when it has nothing to do with the topic.
It's very similar -- the difference being that your RFID-enabled card is never exposed to outside readers, just like credit cards currently. There's always the human factor, but this minimizes that as well. All the precious, (supposedly) necessary info is there, but without physical insertion, no one can retrieve any of the data (excepting database hacks, etc).
Also, if the smart card requires a copper connection, is it really RFID -- does the connection just supply power for the broadcast? And if so, is the broadcast interceptable?
That's what it's about to me -- minimizing the chance that my data could be misappropriated or misused, which means removing the human factor. If it were up to me, the concept of broadcast in personal IDs would never be implemented.
If that means sticking to current technologies, I'm OK with that.
Re:Doomsday can come only from governments
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"I believe that he makes a big mistake: he equates society with government."
I not so sure about that -- Diamond says that government is a facet of society, and governmental collapse is a symptom of pending or occurring societal collapse. Government can also contribute to societal collapse, as it's actions or lack thereof directly affect the actions of the people in a society.
As to "If the government would butt out, we could return to the days that an honest day's work reaps and honest day's pay."
This is exactly the problem. Can't see the forest for the trees -- everyone doing what is in their immediate best interests (an honest day's pay) can result in dire consequences in the long run for the entire society.
We need to wisely pick and choose what policies, restrictions, etc, we enact for ourselves, or else we'll burn out our resources and cause our own collapse. And how else do we enforce those policies except through government?
My problem with Simon's analysis is that he looked at historic figures, typically over huge populations. Also, his calculations were based on societies that succeeded; by default, no failed societies were included (like the ones that Diamond examines). Also, historical models cannot be extrapolated to the future with certainty -- just because we've not yet hit the limit of sustainable resource use doesn't mean that no limit exists -- especially as our actions often decrease the supply of available resources.
"There is more oil still in the earth than all the oil we've taken out in history: we just need to find ways to get it out profitably."
Considering that we've only been using oil for less than two centuries, and that oil use is still increasing -- the fact that more remains than we've used is insignificant -- some details on that from DOE. Note that other fossil fuels are picking up the slack for oil, since oil usage rates are increasing slower than they were a couple decades ago.
"We don't have that today as our currency is constantly stolen through inflation, people don't enter their own businesses due to regulations and licensing, and we're uncompetitive as we don't work hard because government provides everything, cradle to grave.
Little of this statement has to do with resource depletion and management, except for the claim that people don't enter business due to regulation and licensing. A lot of that regulation and licensing is there to prevent people from personally profiting in a manner that has a net bad effect on society. Restrictions on high-polluting mining methods, for a very visible and clear example. Regulation is a way for society to govern itself to do what it thinks is best. Which brings me back to my first point -- government is part of society. It's a primary method by which people impact the actions of others within their society.
Good point. Not sure how to fix that problem, but at least I'd know that I was exposing my information.
One possibility -- though it would never be implemented:
Personal IDs are in an RFID-proof case (credit-card sized). Special hardware needed to unlock the case, which then reads the tag within an RFID-proof box. Exterior display show the necessary information, authorizes the transaction, or whatever. The RFID tag is never 'visible' to outside readers, the black box does its job. Still has security problems (black box hackability, for one), accpetance problems (it's very visible, most people are fine with RFID as long as it doesn't intrude on their activities), cost, other problems (durability of case, for one).
Sorry, I made mistake -- it's the written account of the broadcast, not the game, that falls under the copyright (and which I was thinking of). Wouldn't be too surprised though, if MLB tried to push the other side, which apparently is what they're doing. Just wait until the fine print on the reverse of your ticket says that by entering the stadium, you are forfeiting your rights to publish any accounts of the game.
Not sure of whether that's innate to the card's broadcast ability, or partially due to the reader. Possible to amplify?
Re:Doomsday can come only from governments
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"There is so much land available in the entire globe that I don't see how warlords can use the strength of weapons to take over"
Useable land? Enough useable farmland to support 6 Bn people? Along with the fuel needed to get the same kind of return from the land that we experience now, including distribution of the food?
My point is that faced with a growing population, uncertain sustainability of our current food production methods (e.g., how can we do it without fossil fuels to rely on for production and distribution), and reduced supply of both arable land and waters suitable for food production, how can we expect to keep everyone fed? And if we can't feed everyone, how will disputes be resolved? My guess is through warfare. State action in some cases, "Mad Max"-style in others. If the drop in food production is extreme enough, modern states will collapse, and the "Mad Max" vision may come to pass.
Well, I don't want ANY information to be accessible to those who I do not authorize to give the information to. Whether it's a smart Metrocard, or Gascard, or whatever it is... when I'm not using it for it's intended purpose, it should not be readable at all.
As to how often I pull out my DL -- quite a bit, when I was younger and went out to the bars often. Young smokers may even pull it out daily.
I think it would be much easier, and cheaper, to have banket security in this case -- i.e., you need positive approval from me before reading any of my data.
"Why must people make such polarizing comments? Can't they see how many people they alienate with one fell swoop? He could have gotten the same message across without the drama."
Unfortunately, he probably couldn't, or at least not to as many people. Would this book have gotten coverage on Slashdot if it weren't so dramatic? Probably not. I'm not impugning Slashdot, it's just the nature of our society to pay attention to the ridiculous.
An unfortunate consequence is that his brand of extremism is likely to make more realistic claims and analyses less acceptable to the mainstream.
A fortunate possible consequence is that such extremism may shift the "center-of-opinion" towards (but not into) extremist alarmism -- which means that we may see some preventative (and hopefully even ameliorative) action.
The fact is, though, alarmism sells. "End-of-the-world" prophets have always had their followings. And despite whatever message the author wants to get across, he's beholden to his publisher -- and sales are what Penguin's looking for.
We're marketing a line of trend-conscious tinfoil hats with interior pockets for all your RFID-taged personal items. So far, we've come up with a few prototypes for different markets:
(1) Baseball cap: The Toyota "Psyon" (get it?) of TFHs -- stylish and cost-conscious. We expect this to be our biggest seller, since the male 15-24 demographic is most likely to be aware of the dangers apparent with RFID; they are also most likely to perpetuate a trend involving tinfoil hats. Also, lower price-point than other models.
(2) Fedora: Stylish and useful, the luxury minivan of TFHs. For those in either law enforcement or organized crime who have their own reasons for hiding their activity.
(3) Sombrero: The SUV of TFHs. Spacious pockets and high-powered shielding; will even protect neckwear from overhead surveillance. Mexican illegals may find this one both culturally acceptable and useful to avoid INS. Plus, the plan is that it'll catch on in major cities, as our marketing team has identified a potential demand for the "Urban Tin-foil Sombrero".
(4) Yarmulka: This product is designed for a niche market. While pocketroom and coverage is minimal, the market is obligated to wear one. Why not ours, eh? Also, may find a second market amongst people who desire a disguised TFH -- easily hidden under a old-fashioned (traditional, or non-tinfoil hat).
Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this amazing business opportunity. With a modest initial investment, you can be a partner in utilizing the output of soon-to-be-acquired tin mines in order to maximize the earnings potential of these synergistic products.
"I really don't get the paranoia about this RFID stuff, they mostly seem like fancy barcodes."
Fancy barcodes that have your personal identifying information them, and can be scanned surreptitiously by any lurker with the right hardware & software.
It's kind of hard not to notice someone trying to scan the barcode tattooed on your neck (plus, you could just wear a turtleneck). It's when they scan the RFID tag in your wallet that you'll never know when THEY are watching you.
"It is the one kind of transaction that cannot be stored, profiled, abused, and otherwise attached to your identity for all eternity."
Not so much as you'd think. I recently had to withdraw over $10k cash for employee holiday bonuses, and had to provide identification so that the bank could let the US Government know
(1) My name, address, and occupation (including full company name and job title)
(2) The fact that I had received over $10k cash
(3) The serial numbers of the bills I received
So, for now, they do trace cash, but only when transactions are over $10k. But, should an illegal cash activity happen, and a lot of the bills I received turn up in that transaction -- well, then I'm under suspicion.
There's a whole bunch more to this (like, if they suspect that the cash is illegal, and seize it, I have to sue to get it back). While the $10k limit seems reasonable (most people never handle that sum in cash), I disagree. I think eventually that limit will be $5k. Or $2k. Especially as the cost of information sotrage and transittal continues the decrease. Plus, with guaranteed inflation over the long run (considered necessary by government to stimulate investment spending), eventually that limit will be meaningless.
"So, instead of having roughly a 2:1 ratio of artists to programmers, this would (in theory) allow the programmers to take some base art model and mutate it based on a given algorithm, and thereby cut down the number of artists required to make a game."
It's not just to cut down on the number of artists. It's also to cut down on the disc memory required for hi-res graphics. Much cheaper (memory-wise) to store an algorithm and x seeds than it is to store x images (when value of x is large).
This was used quite a bit in games written in Basic for early Commodores -- level layouts were done by a formula and a random seed; playtesters (read: the programmers, or the programmers' little brothers) then evaluated the results, and noted the seeds used for each. The published game then fixed the seed values for each level. IIRC, Telengard used this method -- which had a ten-minute load time from cassette, even with the resultant memory savings.
It did use it, from '01 through mid-'02. Lots of problems with it though, including workers' actions to continue using the Post Office brand (only tangentially related to the rebranding, since they were cutting a ton (tonne?) of jobs due to financial problems).
The Post Office did have a second rebranding, though, that stuck -- the Royal Mail. This was discussed as a possibility in '99-'00, but rejected partly due to concerns about how it would go over in past colonies.
So, what we have with the Consignia and the Royal Mail rebrands are close examples of failure and success. Interesting to look at the differences (I just wasted 40 mins. doing so) and do some comparative analysis. Wish I had time to further pursue it...
"Barry Bonds either did or did not hit 73 homers. Kerry Wood did or did not fan 20 Astros in a game. I don't see how that can be "owned"."
If I recall, recent investigations into steroid use in MLB may result Barry Bonds' record being 'owned.' Ditto with investigations into surgical enhancements of pitching arms resulting in Kerry Wood's historical performance being 'owned.' Or maybe I should say 'pwned,' seeing as I, and many others, will forever consider any records set in the recent era to have an asterisk next to them.
/rant
Of course, these things did happen during the course of a game/season. And MLB claims that any accounts of the game (written or otherwise) are the property of MLB -- this would include statistics, since they are an account of the game.
As I see it, if MLB can own the copyright on the video of the game, then they can own the copyright on what happened during the game. The two are one and the same.
The answer, to me, is that neither should be valid except during live broadcast of the game. This preserves the MLB television revenue, while keeps fans and others happy by allowing them to have later use of the game / statistics / etc.
"It might seem crazy now, but it is hard to think of companies that really suffered (to the extent of exiting the industry) when they changed their brand names."
Well, of course. If you remembered the new brand name, it would have been effective, yes? It's telling that we don't remember the examples of companies whose rebranding ended in failure.
But, there have been some notable bad ones, such as the UK's Royal Mails rebranding to Consignia. Sure, they didn't exit the industry, but it's a special case. Typically successful companies who make a branding error will take action to ensure they remain viable in their industry.
Slashdot Mirror
"In Bill Bonner's recent book (Empire of Debt), he makes some amazes connections between failed empires and inflation/expansion. Society collapsed when government takes advantage of those in society -- overregulates, overtaxes, and overinflates the currency base. I agree with Bonner."
I'll have to read it. Although, I do have to say, that government just provides the structure for individuals to profit at the expense of the greater good -- I think on this point we agree. We just disagree on the fundamental aspects of government, that is, whether it's "us" -- meaning everyone or "them" -- meaning the aristocracy. If government was not a tool for the arist., I think we wouldn't see the same problems.
"We're constantly changing our lives to better them -- and if that means we make it worse for the next generation, they'll find ways to innovate and survive and grow wealthier and happier"
While I agree that typically what you are saying is true, I think that the next generation is not always able to adapt. I hate to go back to the same source, but I think that Diamond shows this to be true. Of course, in this day and age of instant information and global transport, does it still apply? Pretty much, there would have to be semi-global disaster/drought/etc in order for the next generation not to be able to adapt. I think it's possible, especially if everyone is acting on an individual basis.
Another issue is that without government restriction, people won't always be doing what's best for them individually. Instead, people will be doing what's best for the company they work for -- which is not necessarily what's best for the individual or the society. Self-determinism doesn't always work when your options are severely limited. This is made worse by the fact that individuals act without perfect information. Yes, information access is better now than ever before -- but it's not ideal, especially since many people don't bother to get the information. PR/Campaigning/etc exacerbate this.
"It never happens, and things actually get better."
I think a lot of that is because of (1) Preventative action and (2) Bad hypotheses. If things get bad enough, people take action (reduction of CFCs, or water pollution controls, for examples). Without government, I think we'd have a worse problem with the O3 layer, and with potable/fishable water supplies.
"So many problems we face today (war, empire expansion, taxation, regulations and licensing) can be solvd by keeping government away from fiat currency control -- ie a gold standard."
So, you mean a world gold standard? If so, then we'd have states vying for control of a finite resource, while giving preferential status to those states capable of producing gold. If anything, we'd see worse manipulation of currency, since fewer players would have input. You're just replacing one type of currency manipulation with another. Look at the economic problems the gold rush in the US caused. "The Age of Gold" by HW Brands treats this subject, albeit tangentially.
"I find that the best way to value oil prices is by investigating what the use of that oil produced."
Sure, you want to look at oil cost of production, but the "price of oil" is not the same thing. What currency stabilization does is allow the price of oil to approximate oil cost of production (since the $ is theoretically tied to production), which is why everyone talks about oil in terms of USD (or soon, EUR, which is one reason why US Oil Cos. were happy we invaded Iraq... ask me if you want more info on that).
"This leads me to believe that the cartels in control have better knowledge of the situation than the so called experts."
There is nothing to say that we wouldn't be in even better shape if the cartels weren't in control. Also, the cartels haven't always done exactly as they pleased; so under the current situation, we have the cartels in control but influenced by other actors.
Again though, a problem we have is that extrapolating past history to fossil fuels assumes that we'll have the similar market conditions, which I think is a big problem. FF supply is not infinite, getting more expensive as we have to hit up less easily availabe resevoirs -- supply is finite. Furthermore, a lot of the world's political structure is dependent on current FF production/consumption; when we shift away from FF, there will be upheaval. Will states, and societies, adapt? Sure -- but it won't be painless.
I can't see a gold standard helping the situation much at all. I'm not a pure Keynesian, but I can't see how preventing states from taking action to stabilize their currency (and thus preventing self-feeding recessions) will result in a net increase in QOL, or even productivity, in the long run. Say naturally occurring drough or climate change caused major decreases in food production in the Western US -- how would a gold standard prevent inflation, when production drops while currency remains constant? And how would a gold standard keep that inflation from further reducing production? It's a downward spiral that would eventually result in revolution, IMO.
Thanks -- wasn't sure on how weak the broadcast was, and whether it was possible to read at a distance. Would weaker broadcasts (with accordingly more sensitive readers) be possible, so that max read distance would be a few centimeters?
"We have enough usable land, because every year advances in agricultural technology increase crop yields per unit area (selective breeding, genetic engineering, GPS-based micro-adjustments of field fertilization and drip irrigation)."
Increased productivity has been happening since the dawn of farming. Despite this, entire civilizations have collapsed, because those advances have not kept up with population growth (sometimes due to consequences of farming).
Also, the amount of usable land is not constant; it is decreasing, a lot of which (maybe all) is due to human action. Regardless of how productive a parcel of land is, it does you no good if you've got high levels of arsenic in the soil. Throw in salinization, erosion, and all the other reasons we're losing arable land, and there is a concern that there will need to be a "population adjustment" in the next century or centuries. Whether through war, famine, etc, those adjustments are never popular (sorry about the pun) and political upheaval is likely.
Re: fuel, I tend to agree with you -- except that there is risk of catastrophe involved, as well as issues with spent fuel containment. I think we'll figure that one out, though it may be a painful conversion.
"but it is still cheaper than it has been in the past 150 years on average"
I'm interested in how much of that is due to extremely low supply in the 19th century, especially as compared to the availability of gold. Also, how do you calculate average? Is it weighted by quantity, or perhaps by GDP or by population? How do you define price in your calculations? IMO, you should even be considering the price of oil in your calculations until the late 1940s, since the model was completely different prior to that.
"Prices always drop, except (again) when government manipulates markets and currencies."
I don't think you can apply Simon's maxim here; oil is a commodity product that does not have infinite supply (which Simon assumes in his calculations, since his calculations and prjections are based on historical figures where limited supply was NOT an issue).
"Heading back to the gold standard would do wonders for the first government that dumps fiat currency. "
I keep reading comments where you make this claim, even when it has nothing to do with the topic.
It's very similar -- the difference being that your RFID-enabled card is never exposed to outside readers, just like credit cards currently. There's always the human factor, but this minimizes that as well. All the precious, (supposedly) necessary info is there, but without physical insertion, no one can retrieve any of the data (excepting database hacks, etc).
Also, if the smart card requires a copper connection, is it really RFID -- does the connection just supply power for the broadcast? And if so, is the broadcast interceptable?
That's what it's about to me -- minimizing the chance that my data could be misappropriated or misused, which means removing the human factor. If it were up to me, the concept of broadcast in personal IDs would never be implemented.
If that means sticking to current technologies, I'm OK with that.
"I believe that he makes a big mistake: he equates society with government."
I not so sure about that -- Diamond says that government is a facet of society, and governmental collapse is a symptom of pending or occurring societal collapse. Government can also contribute to societal collapse, as it's actions or lack thereof directly affect the actions of the people in a society.
As to "If the government would butt out, we could return to the days that an honest day's work reaps and honest day's pay."
This is exactly the problem. Can't see the forest for the trees -- everyone doing what is in their immediate best interests (an honest day's pay) can result in dire consequences in the long run for the entire society.
We need to wisely pick and choose what policies, restrictions, etc, we enact for ourselves, or else we'll burn out our resources and cause our own collapse. And how else do we enforce those policies except through government?
My problem with Simon's analysis is that he looked at historic figures, typically over huge populations. Also, his calculations were based on societies that succeeded; by default, no failed societies were included (like the ones that Diamond examines). Also, historical models cannot be extrapolated to the future with certainty -- just because we've not yet hit the limit of sustainable resource use doesn't mean that no limit exists -- especially as our actions often decrease the supply of available resources.
"There is more oil still in the earth than all the oil we've taken out in history: we just need to find ways to get it out profitably."
Considering that we've only been using oil for less than two centuries, and that oil use is still increasing -- the fact that more remains than we've used is insignificant -- some details on that from DOE. Note that other fossil fuels are picking up the slack for oil, since oil usage rates are increasing slower than they were a couple decades ago.
"We don't have that today as our currency is constantly stolen through inflation, people don't enter their own businesses due to regulations and licensing, and we're uncompetitive as we don't work hard because government provides everything, cradle to grave.
Little of this statement has to do with resource depletion and management, except for the claim that people don't enter business due to regulation and licensing. A lot of that regulation and licensing is there to prevent people from personally profiting in a manner that has a net bad effect on society. Restrictions on high-polluting mining methods, for a very visible and clear example. Regulation is a way for society to govern itself to do what it thinks is best. Which brings me back to my first point -- government is part of society. It's a primary method by which people impact the actions of others within their society.
Good point. Not sure how to fix that problem, but at least I'd know that I was exposing my information.
One possibility -- though it would never be implemented:
Personal IDs are in an RFID-proof case (credit-card sized). Special hardware needed to unlock the case, which then reads the tag within an RFID-proof box. Exterior display show the necessary information, authorizes the transaction, or whatever. The RFID tag is never 'visible' to outside readers, the black box does its job. Still has security problems (black box hackability, for one), accpetance problems (it's very visible, most people are fine with RFID as long as it doesn't intrude on their activities), cost, other problems (durability of case, for one).
Sorry, I made mistake -- it's the written account of the broadcast, not the game, that falls under the copyright (and which I was thinking of). Wouldn't be too surprised though, if MLB tried to push the other side, which apparently is what they're doing. Just wait until the fine print on the reverse of your ticket says that by entering the stadium, you are forfeiting your rights to publish any accounts of the game.
Not sure of whether that's innate to the card's broadcast ability, or partially due to the reader. Possible to amplify?
"There is so much land available in the entire globe that I don't see how warlords can use the strength of weapons to take over"
.
Useable land? Enough useable farmland to support 6 Bn people? Along with the fuel needed to get the same kind of return from the land that we experience now, including distribution of the food?
I suggest you read Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
Good insight on the topic.
My point is that faced with a growing population, uncertain sustainability of our current food production methods (e.g., how can we do it without fossil fuels to rely on for production and distribution), and reduced supply of both arable land and waters suitable for food production, how can we expect to keep everyone fed? And if we can't feed everyone, how will disputes be resolved? My guess is through warfare. State action in some cases, "Mad Max"-style in others. If the drop in food production is extreme enough, modern states will collapse, and the "Mad Max" vision may come to pass.
Well, I don't want ANY information to be accessible to those who I do not authorize to give the information to. Whether it's a smart Metrocard, or Gascard, or whatever it is... when I'm not using it for it's intended purpose, it should not be readable at all.
As to how often I pull out my DL -- quite a bit, when I was younger and went out to the bars often. Young smokers may even pull it out daily.
I think it would be much easier, and cheaper, to have banket security in this case -- i.e., you need positive approval from me before reading any of my data.
"Why must people make such polarizing comments? Can't they see how many people they alienate with one fell swoop? He could have gotten the same message across without the drama."
Unfortunately, he probably couldn't, or at least not to as many people. Would this book have gotten coverage on Slashdot if it weren't so dramatic? Probably not. I'm not impugning Slashdot, it's just the nature of our society to pay attention to the ridiculous.
An unfortunate consequence is that his brand of extremism is likely to make more realistic claims and analyses less acceptable to the mainstream.
A fortunate possible consequence is that such extremism may shift the "center-of-opinion" towards (but not into) extremist alarmism -- which means that we may see some preventative (and hopefully even ameliorative) action.
The fact is, though, alarmism sells. "End-of-the-world" prophets have always had their followings. And despite whatever message the author wants to get across, he's beholden to his publisher -- and sales are what Penguin's looking for.
You may be interested in funding my next startup.
We're marketing a line of trend-conscious tinfoil hats with interior pockets for all your RFID-taged personal items. So far, we've come up with a few prototypes for different markets:
(1) Baseball cap: The Toyota "Psyon" (get it?) of TFHs -- stylish and cost-conscious. We expect this to be our biggest seller, since the male 15-24 demographic is most likely to be aware of the dangers apparent with RFID; they are also most likely to perpetuate a trend involving tinfoil hats. Also, lower price-point than other models.
(2) Fedora: Stylish and useful, the luxury minivan of TFHs. For those in either law enforcement or organized crime who have their own reasons for hiding their activity.
(3) Sombrero: The SUV of TFHs. Spacious pockets and high-powered shielding; will even protect neckwear from overhead surveillance. Mexican illegals may find this one both culturally acceptable and useful to avoid INS. Plus, the plan is that it'll catch on in major cities, as our marketing team has identified a potential demand for the "Urban Tin-foil Sombrero".
(4) Yarmulka: This product is designed for a niche market. While pocketroom and coverage is minimal, the market is obligated to wear one. Why not ours, eh? Also, may find a second market amongst people who desire a disguised TFH -- easily hidden under a old-fashioned (traditional, or non-tinfoil hat).
Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this amazing business opportunity. With a modest initial investment, you can be a partner in utilizing the output of soon-to-be-acquired tin mines in order to maximize the earnings potential of these synergistic products.
"I really don't get the paranoia about this RFID stuff, they mostly seem like fancy barcodes."
/Tinfoil hat half-on, in a rakishly dashing tilt.
Fancy barcodes that have your personal identifying information them, and can be scanned surreptitiously by any lurker with the right hardware & software.
It's kind of hard not to notice someone trying to scan the barcode tattooed on your neck (plus, you could just wear a turtleneck). It's when they scan the RFID tag in your wallet that you'll never know when THEY are watching you.
"Why not just avoid getting the objects if you don't want to use them?"
Because eventually, you won't have that choice. Passports, Driver's licenses, etc, will all require RFID tags.
"It is the one kind of transaction that cannot be stored, profiled, abused, and otherwise attached to your identity for all eternity."
Not so much as you'd think. I recently had to withdraw over $10k cash for employee holiday bonuses, and had to provide identification so that the bank could let the US Government know
(1) My name, address, and occupation (including full company name and job title)
(2) The fact that I had received over $10k cash
(3) The serial numbers of the bills I received
So, for now, they do trace cash, but only when transactions are over $10k. But, should an illegal cash activity happen, and a lot of the bills I received turn up in that transaction -- well, then I'm under suspicion.
There's a whole bunch more to this (like, if they suspect that the cash is illegal, and seize it, I have to sue to get it back). While the $10k limit seems reasonable (most people never handle that sum in cash), I disagree. I think eventually that limit will be $5k. Or $2k. Especially as the cost of information sotrage and transittal continues the decrease. Plus, with guaranteed inflation over the long run (considered necessary by government to stimulate investment spending), eventually that limit will be meaningless.
"So, instead of having roughly a 2:1 ratio of artists to programmers, this would (in theory) allow the programmers to take some base art model and mutate it based on a given algorithm, and thereby cut down the number of artists required to make a game."
It's not just to cut down on the number of artists. It's also to cut down on the disc memory required for hi-res graphics. Much cheaper (memory-wise) to store an algorithm and x seeds than it is to store x images (when value of x is large).
This was used quite a bit in games written in Basic for early Commodores -- level layouts were done by a formula and a random seed; playtesters (read: the programmers, or the programmers' little brothers) then evaluated the results, and noted the seeds used for each. The published game then fixed the seed values for each level. IIRC, Telengard used this method -- which had a ten-minute load time from cassette, even with the resultant memory savings.
You're giving them too much credit. Voiceover would say:
"You will forget who won, you will forget who won, you won't steal our stats."
Please check out last week's thread re: article selection.
Don't want to see so many Apple articles? Then find different material and submit it yourself.
It did use it, from '01 through mid-'02. Lots of problems with it though, including workers' actions to continue using the Post Office brand (only tangentially related to the rebranding, since they were cutting a ton (tonne?) of jobs due to financial problems).
The Post Office did have a second rebranding, though, that stuck -- the Royal Mail. This was discussed as a possibility in '99-'00, but rejected partly due to concerns about how it would go over in past colonies.
So, what we have with the Consignia and the Royal Mail rebrands are close examples of failure and success. Interesting to look at the differences (I just wasted 40 mins. doing so) and do some comparative analysis. Wish I had time to further pursue it...
"Barry Bonds either did or did not hit 73 homers. Kerry Wood did or did not fan 20 Astros in a game. I don't see how that can be "owned"."
/rant
If I recall, recent investigations into steroid use in MLB may result Barry Bonds' record being 'owned.' Ditto with investigations into surgical enhancements of pitching arms resulting in Kerry Wood's historical performance being 'owned.' Or maybe I should say 'pwned,' seeing as I, and many others, will forever consider any records set in the recent era to have an asterisk next to them.
Of course, these things did happen during the course of a game/season. And MLB claims that any accounts of the game (written or otherwise) are the property of MLB -- this would include statistics, since they are an account of the game.
As I see it, if MLB can own the copyright on the video of the game, then they can own the copyright on what happened during the game. The two are one and the same.
The answer, to me, is that neither should be valid except during live broadcast of the game. This preserves the MLB television revenue, while keeps fans and others happy by allowing them to have later use of the game / statistics / etc.
"It might seem crazy now, but it is hard to think of companies that really suffered (to the extent of exiting the industry) when they changed their brand names."
Well, of course. If you remembered the new brand name, it would have been effective, yes? It's telling that we don't remember the examples of companies whose rebranding ended in failure.
But, there have been some notable bad ones, such as the UK's Royal Mails rebranding to Consignia. Sure, they didn't exit the industry, but it's a special case. Typically successful companies who make a branding error will take action to ensure they remain viable in their industry.
"the concept of actually playing mind games on my ds seems something I am very interested in."
Get married and have daughters, then you'll have all the mind games you can handle. Not that I'm speaking from personal experience, or anything...
It might take a while to get there, even with FTL travel -- it's inthe Cassini system. Incur some time-debt and take a long nap, I say:
Floria