QED my ass. You haven't demonstrated anything. You just took two unrelated objects ('Privacy' and 'ignorance/apathy of the community') and asserted without argument that somehow the confluence of those two explain all the mentioned phenomena. I don't buy it; how about you spell out how privacy is the contributing cause of bigots harrassing gay men, or abusive men chasing their fleeing wives, or even an ex-con trying to avoid the long shadow of a past offense? Please also explain how privacy allows the dissenter to be jailed.
I submit to you that the distinction between a public and a private act is nearly dissolved in this day and age. Most meaningful tasks cannot be completed except by some portion occurring in traditionally "public" space, including all forms of communication but speaking in situ, all commerce, and indeed preety much all social life. A person's public habits and actions, when reviewed in full and codifiable such that they may be stored and compared, are a very powerful inferential tool for predicting private behaviors, opinions, and actions.
The distinction between public and private was meaningful at a time and a place where an indivudual was exposed to public scrutiny only when they call attention to themselves. That is no longer true; surveillance technologies allow constant monitoring of individuals. For those who see no problem with this, ask have they ever had a bad hair day? A cranky mood? Occassionally sped or missed a stop sign? Problem is nobody is perfect in action, even in the narrow sense that they always do what they intend, all the time.
Laws were designed to maintain public order; they cast a net of proscripted behavior slightly wider than those behaviors that actually are a threat to public order, because it is generally recognized than a simple practical safeguard against overintrusive law enforcement is that acts which are technically illegal but raise nobody's heckles are probably not a threat to public order. To wit, someone has to complain in order for one to believe that someone is aggrieved. With surveillance that is no longer the case; and yet we execute those same old laws in a heavily surveilled world.
If the entirety of UK's public space were surveilled, then yes, I think that it would be nearly as destructive as comparable forms of private surveillance. The fact that on narrow philosophical grounds it seems more justifiable, due to our clinging to notions of "public" and "private" that are today practically dead, is why fewer people seem to care. And that is a pity.
So, riddle me this: if "The 2nd Amendment" is all that was required for people to exact satisfaction from corrupt politicians who act with impunity, why haven't the leaders of our USA, surely a corrupt bunch whose shady dealings and flouting of constitutional rule have been more than amply public, been dropping like flies under a hail of patriotic bullets?
Most bigots against homosexuals et al. are plenty public about their hatred and sometimes even murderous intent. Doesn't, in most cases, seem to help.
The "light of the public eye" in most cases has very little but prosaic value, especially for people powerful enough to craft their own public image or, shock of shocks, actually own a PR firm or media outlet who will spin about them and their actions however they desire for the consumption of the viewing and judging public. You seem to have a very simplistic view of just how far the projection of power can extend its corrupting influence if you believe that people, upon being exposed to public wrongdoing will cancel the corruption of the powerful.
I'm sorry; I'm sure your concerns are genuine. I'm just confused that a UK citizen would be comparing just about anyone else unfavorably to themselves on the issue of surveillance. Am I totally off base, or is the UK that place in the world where CCTV cameras are more common than traffic lights? Isn't constant visual surveillance a hallmark of controlling, manipulative, and draconian regimes?
Not every jurisdiction has prohibitions against entrapment, entrapment only applies when the entrapping agency is an agent of the state, and it only applies (IIRC) in Criminal matters. Also, to mount an entrapment defense, there needs to be good reason to believe that the entrapped person would not, but for the entrapment, have committed the act of which they are being accused.
IANAL, take it for what it's worth. However, I'm pretty sure in these cases, none of the above are met.
I am not an ethical relativist. I could care less whether conservatives believe they are ethically wayward when their policies lead to people starving and or dying w/out medical care. It does not change the actual ethical valence of the situation. Ditto the 'redistribution of wealth': also probably objectively unethical. But simply because both options so far are unethical that doesn't mean we can conveniently pretend they aren't. My point in total was that unreflective (that is, most by a great margin) people who identify with a particular ideology tend to gloss over the consequences of their beliefs; what I find even more perplexing is people who cling to beliefs that are likely to be especially detrimental to them, hence the original comment re: conservatism and poverty.
Yeah, it's funny how that works. It's almost as if people can't process anything like: "while I don't agree with their competitors, I believe that person/company/ideology/etc. is behaving evilly." Exactly when did criticizing one group automatically mean you were working for the other side?
Conservatives have a tendency toward ethical blindness when it comes to the pracitcal human consequences of certain ideological fixed-points, like for example their belief in the awesome awesomeness of free markets as applied to everything under the sun. Many conservatives have the self-awareness to admit this is a weakness of their ideology, and some even attempt to address it. Damn heretics, I guess.
Liberals, if you want me to criticize those that I often criticize on a daily basis, have an insufficent appreciation for personal self-possession and responsibility, and tend to believe that underwriting centralized, highly inefficient bureaucracies is somehow a good way of providing services in the public interest. See? I can criticize yet another group I don't belong to. I am versatile.
This could create an environment where corrupt officials are afraid of citizens. That's awesome.
Totally agree. I was just musing about 'in the meantime' when they aren't and this sort of initiative causes flash events that in the short-term may get innocent people's asses kicked/thrown in jail.
By forcing the issue now, hopefully the issue can be brought to light and fixed, and the increase in police issues could hopefully be a temporary condition. By not doing it, things just stew longer and get worse. Hopefully, the sooner it is addressed, the shorter and milder the "dangerous increase in police issues" period could be.
I couldn't agree more. My only thing is, I've been at protests that have ended up in arrests (and been arrested at same) and those were tame in comparison to the sorts of incidents where police officers act with complete impunity and abuse. Then, usually, after they finish abusing you, you get arrested and go through our joyful system anyway. My relatively tame experience, with its accompanying court procedural gauntlet upended a good six months of my life, and it only gets worse if the situation is actually 'serious', in the sense of allegations of abuse. It is a tough cost to bear, and while it has to be done by someone (as you rightly point out) I wish only that the cost to individuals trying to change things wasn't so life-damagingly steep. It is an idle (and some might say pointless) wish, and someone needed to, as you say, force the issue anyway, regardless of the police response.
I suppose it wouldn't be half as bad if our culture didn't treat people with criminal records as if they had leprosy. Convicts, like as not, need jobs and opportunities too in order to live. Deprived of those, where can they turn but back to crime? Most people, for this reason, are not willing to risk criinal charges in order to pursue a just cause. Wasn't ther recently a BS wiretapping charge against someone videotaping a police officer? Fighting charges like those costs good money, and you can still lose and end up with a record.
I am poor, I do not own a gun, I do not drive an SUV, I do not support Bush and I'm GLAD that Paris Hilton is getting a good taste of the judicial system.
Can you move back to the part where you explain why you are conservative? Particularly re: the part about being poor?
Not a liberal here. Just honestly curious why anyone believes in an ideology whose corporeal manifestations try very hard to deny you are worth the time of day, never mind any more substantial consideration.
...that while the ACLU is absolutely right in this context, the practical upshot of this is that many more folks in that community will become victims of Police "misconduct" due to their conspicuous wielding of cameras. And while fighting the good fight and filming anyway is great in the best of all possible worlds, that world isn't this one, and police officers know how to hurt you in real ways, not to mention the system of, ahem, Justice they represent is heavily stacked against someone who has a legit beef re: a police officer.
Besides, on a purely practical note, after the police finish beating the crap out of you and your friend(s), how hard is it for them to confiscate and destroy a recording device?
I'm curious - if the RIAA decides not to prosecute, does this somehow weaken their future cases or set them up for government sanction? (I know, copyrights aren't trademarks).
Maybe not under the law, but certainly in the public eye. The continued behavior of the **IAs requires legislative support for their preferred notion of how copyrights ought to work; if people get actively pissed off enough (and seeing el presidente and spawn get away with something that they can't is sure to do just that) the legislative support (and the favorable laws that accompany it) may evaporate. Of course, targeting politicans' daughters may make it evaporate as well. Oh well, guess they are screwed. If, you know, the media reported on media matters so that anyone would ever know about what is going on. Which will roughly be never. Hmm. I guess they aren't screwed after all.
Copyrights don't work the same as trademarks in that they do not require an active defense to continue operating. But from a moral/political point of view, it is wrong/unwise for the **IA to be selective in their pursuits of 'violators' of their clients' copyrighted works, and doubly so in the public eye (as public officials are "role models", and also a generally privileged class).
The last two examples I gave occurred in the last twenty years (DUI laws and Smoking Bans). And while, being basically a Libertarian at heart I don't care much for bans of that nature, it is very hard to argue that these laws were bought and paid for by their beneficiaries. "Old-school" romanticizes what is basically an unromantic past, filled with politicans serving either themselves or monied interests. Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Dawes Act, Taft-Hartley, and a panoply of Railroad and Industry legislation at the turn of the nineteenth whole basic purpose was to put money in owners' pockets, these were all laws passed in the "old-school" days to which you unduly grant adulation. The overall truth, which is as true today as it was a hundred years ago, is that much legislation is bought and paid for, but there are always significant and life-changing exceptions in every period, with real statesmen approaching issues of public concern and prevailing on the public's behalf.
I agree on Ron Paul, he is a breath of fresh air. Obama is similar on the other side; a fresh message, actual optimism, and not governing straight from opinion polls. The rest of both fields leave me with a bitter, bored taste, and if neither of them is on the final ballot I will probably just cast my quadriennial protest vote for whoever the LP puts up.
You should be fine so long as you avoid the following topics: Microsoft, Apple, Google, Linux, IPv6, Religion, Politics, Creationism, Evolution, Copyrights, Copylefts, Corporations, Class Warfare, Taxation, Intellectual Property, Economics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Blogs, Open-Source Software, Science Fiction, Hacking, Cracking, the United States of America, Hats of ANY Color, and the Weather.
But seriously, I agree with you that we should not worry about how we are modded prior to commenting; only that one honestly feels that one has something worthwhile to say, and karma be damned. "Doing alright here" on the other hand, i.e. having enough karma to have one's comments peak above the morass of undifferentiated unnoticeables, is more touch-and-go.;)
Tell me, if you would, how much money was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sold for? How about the Bill of Rights? The Twenty-Seventh Amendment? What was the price in dollars for getting the Clean Air Act passed? Tell me what wealthy interest outspent the tobacco industry to be behind the banning of smoking in public places? I'm curious who pockets all the money from DUI laws.
Fact is a great deal of legislation does happen for honest public-policy ends. Not all values are bought and paid for. Politicians still occassionally have the capacity to demonstrate their membership in the human race.
Apparently, 1985, when the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that every piece of legislation passed in English only (which in Manitoba was every piece since 1890) was invalid. However, there was a short grace period allowed during which the English laws were stil enforceable so that Manitoba could get its shit into French and not descend into total anarchy.
The Quebecois are fierce; if there isn't a French-also version I imagine they would just burn the warning letters en masse. If there is to be oppression in Quebec at all, it damn well will be in French.
But who exactly demanded the DMCA-like policies? Politicians pretty much everywhere are ciphers for constituent and special interests, and so it is unusual in the extreme for a legislative idea to come tumbling unbidden from legislators' heads. So, I'm wondering whose doing the demanding such that the legislators are responding.
But by then, computers already had changed the world; Friday was published in the mid '80s, and by then, it took only a minimum level of perception to realize that the then-growing personal computer industry was not going to stop growing; much of what would become the WWW was already departing from blueprints and becoming reality. Same thing, to a slightly lesser extent, with NotB (1980), when contemporaenously there was obvious practical innovation in personal computing, and the Apple II was right around the corner. The other you mentioned (MHM) falls to the basic complaint that GP made, that computers in Heinlein's worlds were special purpose installations (in MHM, a giant AI mainframe colony manager) and not PCs in any sense.
This is not to pooh on Heinlein; he's one of my favorite authors. Only, I think GP's criticism about a lacuna in Heinlein's vision regarding computers is on-point.
Hell, between tanks and ICBMs, which one has done more damage in the entire history of warfare? Hell, the ICBM and the fricking bow and arrow! ICBMs are such a powerful weapon that they're never actually used; in other words, so powerful that they're useless.
That assumes something which is very obviously untrue, which is that war is an end in itself. If dead bodies were the point, then you could make an analysis of weapons of war by their bodycounts. However, war is usually an extention of politics, and as such, ICBMs, even though they've never killed a soul, have served the metapurposes of politics to which war is in service. ICBMs, and the nuclear weapons with which they have been coupled, are weapons of war that serve the purposes of politics with an unimaginably large impact. To call them useless, knowing that, is absurd.
Not so. People, as individuals, may choose associate into like-minded groups, and assemble and organize. People, as individuals, may choose to pool their resources for common cause. The difference here is, a (private, for-profit) corporation is an entity unto *itself* under the law in every significant sense; it is not a reflection, by and large, of the political identities of its individual members, and certainly not of its employees, unless you are willing to say that creating profits in and of itself is primarily a political ideology of some sort. I fail to see how that artificial being whose only job is to profit itself gets a seat at any table when what's on that table is the public welfare.
Slashdot Mirror
I especially got a kick out of "keeping unusual work hours". Seriously, who *doesn't* do this at a University?
QED my ass. You haven't demonstrated anything. You just took two unrelated objects ('Privacy' and 'ignorance/apathy of the community') and asserted without argument that somehow the confluence of those two explain all the mentioned phenomena. I don't buy it; how about you spell out how privacy is the contributing cause of bigots harrassing gay men, or abusive men chasing their fleeing wives, or even an ex-con trying to avoid the long shadow of a past offense? Please also explain how privacy allows the dissenter to be jailed.
I submit to you that the distinction between a public and a private act is nearly dissolved in this day and age. Most meaningful tasks cannot be completed except by some portion occurring in traditionally "public" space, including all forms of communication but speaking in situ, all commerce, and indeed preety much all social life. A person's public habits and actions, when reviewed in full and codifiable such that they may be stored and compared, are a very powerful inferential tool for predicting private behaviors, opinions, and actions.
The distinction between public and private was meaningful at a time and a place where an indivudual was exposed to public scrutiny only when they call attention to themselves. That is no longer true; surveillance technologies allow constant monitoring of individuals. For those who see no problem with this, ask have they ever had a bad hair day? A cranky mood? Occassionally sped or missed a stop sign? Problem is nobody is perfect in action, even in the narrow sense that they always do what they intend, all the time.
Laws were designed to maintain public order; they cast a net of proscripted behavior slightly wider than those behaviors that actually are a threat to public order, because it is generally recognized than a simple practical safeguard against overintrusive law enforcement is that acts which are technically illegal but raise nobody's heckles are probably not a threat to public order. To wit, someone has to complain in order for one to believe that someone is aggrieved. With surveillance that is no longer the case; and yet we execute those same old laws in a heavily surveilled world.
If the entirety of UK's public space were surveilled, then yes, I think that it would be nearly as destructive as comparable forms of private surveillance. The fact that on narrow philosophical grounds it seems more justifiable, due to our clinging to notions of "public" and "private" that are today practically dead, is why fewer people seem to care. And that is a pity.
So, riddle me this: if "The 2nd Amendment" is all that was required for people to exact satisfaction from corrupt politicians who act with impunity, why haven't the leaders of our USA, surely a corrupt bunch whose shady dealings and flouting of constitutional rule have been more than amply public, been dropping like flies under a hail of patriotic bullets?
Most bigots against homosexuals et al. are plenty public about their hatred and sometimes even murderous intent. Doesn't, in most cases, seem to help.
The "light of the public eye" in most cases has very little but prosaic value, especially for people powerful enough to craft their own public image or, shock of shocks, actually own a PR firm or media outlet who will spin about them and their actions however they desire for the consumption of the viewing and judging public. You seem to have a very simplistic view of just how far the projection of power can extend its corrupting influence if you believe that people, upon being exposed to public wrongdoing will cancel the corruption of the powerful.
Yeah, privacy is dumb. Who could possibly use privacy for good purpose?
Perhaps the political dissident who would be jailed for expressing himself in public.
Perhaps the gay man who is unfortunate enough to love someone in Ala-fucking-bama.
Perhaps the abused wife who is trying to flee from an obsessed husband.
Perhaps the ex-con who wants to escape the shadow of his past and live legitimately.
Yeah, privacy is the darkness that clouds everything. Sure.
I'm sorry; I'm sure your concerns are genuine. I'm just confused that a UK citizen would be comparing just about anyone else unfavorably to themselves on the issue of surveillance. Am I totally off base, or is the UK that place in the world where CCTV cameras are more common than traffic lights? Isn't constant visual surveillance a hallmark of controlling, manipulative, and draconian regimes?
Not every jurisdiction has prohibitions against entrapment, entrapment only applies when the entrapping agency is an agent of the state, and it only applies (IIRC) in Criminal matters. Also, to mount an entrapment defense, there needs to be good reason to believe that the entrapped person would not, but for the entrapment, have committed the act of which they are being accused.
IANAL, take it for what it's worth. However, I'm pretty sure in these cases, none of the above are met.
I am not an ethical relativist. I could care less whether conservatives believe they are ethically wayward when their policies lead to people starving and or dying w/out medical care. It does not change the actual ethical valence of the situation. Ditto the 'redistribution of wealth': also probably objectively unethical. But simply because both options so far are unethical that doesn't mean we can conveniently pretend they aren't. My point in total was that unreflective (that is, most by a great margin) people who identify with a particular ideology tend to gloss over the consequences of their beliefs; what I find even more perplexing is people who cling to beliefs that are likely to be especially detrimental to them, hence the original comment re: conservatism and poverty.
Yeah, it's funny how that works. It's almost as if people can't process anything like: "while I don't agree with their competitors, I believe that person/company/ideology/etc. is behaving evilly." Exactly when did criticizing one group automatically mean you were working for the other side?
Conservatives have a tendency toward ethical blindness when it comes to the pracitcal human consequences of certain ideological fixed-points, like for example their belief in the awesome awesomeness of free markets as applied to everything under the sun. Many conservatives have the self-awareness to admit this is a weakness of their ideology, and some even attempt to address it. Damn heretics, I guess.
Liberals, if you want me to criticize those that I often criticize on a daily basis, have an insufficent appreciation for personal self-possession and responsibility, and tend to believe that underwriting centralized, highly inefficient bureaucracies is somehow a good way of providing services in the public interest. See? I can criticize yet another group I don't belong to. I am versatile.
This could create an environment where corrupt officials are afraid of citizens. That's awesome.
Totally agree. I was just musing about 'in the meantime' when they aren't and this sort of initiative causes flash events that in the short-term may get innocent people's asses kicked/thrown in jail.
By forcing the issue now, hopefully the issue can be brought to light and fixed, and the increase in police issues could hopefully be a temporary condition. By not doing it, things just stew longer and get worse. Hopefully, the sooner it is addressed, the shorter and milder the "dangerous increase in police issues" period could be.
I couldn't agree more. My only thing is, I've been at protests that have ended up in arrests (and been arrested at same) and those were tame in comparison to the sorts of incidents where police officers act with complete impunity and abuse. Then, usually, after they finish abusing you, you get arrested and go through our joyful system anyway. My relatively tame experience, with its accompanying court procedural gauntlet upended a good six months of my life, and it only gets worse if the situation is actually 'serious', in the sense of allegations of abuse. It is a tough cost to bear, and while it has to be done by someone (as you rightly point out) I wish only that the cost to individuals trying to change things wasn't so life-damagingly steep. It is an idle (and some might say pointless) wish, and someone needed to, as you say, force the issue anyway, regardless of the police response.
I suppose it wouldn't be half as bad if our culture didn't treat people with criminal records as if they had leprosy. Convicts, like as not, need jobs and opportunities too in order to live. Deprived of those, where can they turn but back to crime? Most people, for this reason, are not willing to risk criinal charges in order to pursue a just cause. Wasn't ther recently a BS wiretapping charge against someone videotaping a police officer? Fighting charges like those costs good money, and you can still lose and end up with a record.
I am poor, I do not own a gun, I do not drive an SUV, I do not support Bush and I'm GLAD that Paris Hilton is getting a good taste of the judicial system.
Can you move back to the part where you explain why you are conservative? Particularly re: the part about being poor?
Not a liberal here. Just honestly curious why anyone believes in an ideology whose corporeal manifestations try very hard to deny you are worth the time of day, never mind any more substantial consideration.
...that while the ACLU is absolutely right in this context, the practical upshot of this is that many more folks in that community will become victims of Police "misconduct" due to their conspicuous wielding of cameras. And while fighting the good fight and filming anyway is great in the best of all possible worlds, that world isn't this one, and police officers know how to hurt you in real ways, not to mention the system of, ahem, Justice they represent is heavily stacked against someone who has a legit beef re: a police officer.
Besides, on a purely practical note, after the police finish beating the crap out of you and your friend(s), how hard is it for them to confiscate and destroy a recording device?
I'm curious - if the RIAA decides not to prosecute, does this somehow weaken their future cases or set them up for government sanction? (I know, copyrights aren't trademarks).
Maybe not under the law, but certainly in the public eye. The continued behavior of the **IAs requires legislative support for their preferred notion of how copyrights ought to work; if people get actively pissed off enough (and seeing el presidente and spawn get away with something that they can't is sure to do just that) the legislative support (and the favorable laws that accompany it) may evaporate. Of course, targeting politicans' daughters may make it evaporate as well. Oh well, guess they are screwed. If, you know, the media reported on media matters so that anyone would ever know about what is going on. Which will roughly be never. Hmm. I guess they aren't screwed after all.
Copyrights don't work the same as trademarks in that they do not require an active defense to continue operating. But from a moral/political point of view, it is wrong/unwise for the **IA to be selective in their pursuits of 'violators' of their clients' copyrighted works, and doubly so in the public eye (as public officials are "role models", and also a generally privileged class).
The last two examples I gave occurred in the last twenty years (DUI laws and Smoking Bans). And while, being basically a Libertarian at heart I don't care much for bans of that nature, it is very hard to argue that these laws were bought and paid for by their beneficiaries. "Old-school" romanticizes what is basically an unromantic past, filled with politicans serving either themselves or monied interests. Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Dawes Act, Taft-Hartley, and a panoply of Railroad and Industry legislation at the turn of the nineteenth whole basic purpose was to put money in owners' pockets, these were all laws passed in the "old-school" days to which you unduly grant adulation. The overall truth, which is as true today as it was a hundred years ago, is that much legislation is bought and paid for, but there are always significant and life-changing exceptions in every period, with real statesmen approaching issues of public concern and prevailing on the public's behalf.
I agree on Ron Paul, he is a breath of fresh air. Obama is similar on the other side; a fresh message, actual optimism, and not governing straight from opinion polls. The rest of both fields leave me with a bitter, bored taste, and if neither of them is on the final ballot I will probably just cast my quadriennial protest vote for whoever the LP puts up.
You should be fine so long as you avoid the following topics: Microsoft, Apple, Google, Linux, IPv6, Religion, Politics, Creationism, Evolution, Copyrights, Copylefts, Corporations, Class Warfare, Taxation, Intellectual Property, Economics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Blogs, Open-Source Software, Science Fiction, Hacking, Cracking, the United States of America, Hats of ANY Color, and the Weather.
But seriously, I agree with you that we should not worry about how we are modded prior to commenting; only that one honestly feels that one has something worthwhile to say, and karma be damned. "Doing alright here" on the other hand, i.e. having enough karma to have one's comments peak above the morass of undifferentiated unnoticeables, is more touch-and-go. ;)
Tell me, if you would, how much money was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sold for? How about the Bill of Rights? The Twenty-Seventh Amendment? What was the price in dollars for getting the Clean Air Act passed? Tell me what wealthy interest outspent the tobacco industry to be behind the banning of smoking in public places? I'm curious who pockets all the money from DUI laws.
Fact is a great deal of legislation does happen for honest public-policy ends. Not all values are bought and paid for. Politicians still occassionally have the capacity to demonstrate their membership in the human race.
Apparently, 1985, when the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that every piece of legislation passed in English only (which in Manitoba was every piece since 1890) was invalid. However, there was a short grace period allowed during which the English laws were stil enforceable so that Manitoba could get its shit into French and not descend into total anarchy.
The Quebecois are fierce; if there isn't a French-also version I imagine they would just burn the warning letters en masse. If there is to be oppression in Quebec at all, it damn well will be in French.
But who exactly demanded the DMCA-like policies? Politicians pretty much everywhere are ciphers for constituent and special interests, and so it is unusual in the extreme for a legislative idea to come tumbling unbidden from legislators' heads. So, I'm wondering whose doing the demanding such that the legislators are responding.
But by then, computers already had changed the world; Friday was published in the mid '80s, and by then, it took only a minimum level of perception to realize that the then-growing personal computer industry was not going to stop growing; much of what would become the WWW was already departing from blueprints and becoming reality. Same thing, to a slightly lesser extent, with NotB (1980), when contemporaenously there was obvious practical innovation in personal computing, and the Apple II was right around the corner. The other you mentioned (MHM) falls to the basic complaint that GP made, that computers in Heinlein's worlds were special purpose installations (in MHM, a giant AI mainframe colony manager) and not PCs in any sense.
This is not to pooh on Heinlein; he's one of my favorite authors. Only, I think GP's criticism about a lacuna in Heinlein's vision regarding computers is on-point.
Hell, between tanks and ICBMs, which one has done more damage in the entire history of warfare? Hell, the ICBM and the fricking bow and arrow! ICBMs are such a powerful weapon that they're never actually used; in other words, so powerful that they're useless.
That assumes something which is very obviously untrue, which is that war is an end in itself. If dead bodies were the point, then you could make an analysis of weapons of war by their bodycounts. However, war is usually an extention of politics, and as such, ICBMs, even though they've never killed a soul, have served the metapurposes of politics to which war is in service. ICBMs, and the nuclear weapons with which they have been coupled, are weapons of war that serve the purposes of politics with an unimaginably large impact. To call them useless, knowing that, is absurd.
How's that working out for Britain?
Not so. People, as individuals, may choose associate into like-minded groups, and assemble and organize. People, as individuals, may choose to pool their resources for common cause. The difference here is, a (private, for-profit) corporation is an entity unto *itself* under the law in every significant sense; it is not a reflection, by and large, of the political identities of its individual members, and certainly not of its employees, unless you are willing to say that creating profits in and of itself is primarily a political ideology of some sort. I fail to see how that artificial being whose only job is to profit itself gets a seat at any table when what's on that table is the public welfare.