Why was this never an issue with ICQ, or Yahoo!, all of which allow for easy communication, the building of profiles, et cetera?
Popularity? I have little doubt that Y!'s impact was not as widespread as MySpace's, but this wasn't a problem when it was the first name on everyone's lips in the subject of 'internet.'
Just wondering exactly what has changed between then and now?
Does it fail to surprise anyone else that CNN and other major media (I mean, 'news') outlets aren't reporting on this? Then again, they're so busy reporting on Kidman and Urban's desires for a normal wedding, Anna Nicole Smith's inheritance rival dying, and Reese Witherspoon suing someone over a false pregnancy story (all on CNN.com). Who has time for this kind of news when there's all that out there! Such decisions!
I will be interested in seeing the BBC's take on the matter.
Having worked with patients with CF and MS, among others, I'm excited at the prospects of this new testing, but am waiting, as I have with so many other treatments in development (though granted this has a much higher chance of success), for actual clinical results, not just proposals.
Doesn't alcohol inhibit the brain's ability to pass information between the neurons? Though I know the study is not designed for this, it'd be interested to see if the additional 'signal boost' allowed for cells to overcome the added resistance.
2015: More beer, less drunk
a prosecuter in WA can decide that the Nevada site www.poker-n-prostitutes.com [not real (I hope)] violates the WA statute & initiate an extradition request for the owner of the site
Not that much in our legal system seems to make sense anymore, but doesn't this sound a bit odd? After all, if the site is not hosted, registered, or advertized in Washington, what right do they have to crack down on them just because it's viewable from there? Are we going to set up China-esque firewalls at the state borders? That'd be the only way to regulate traffic in such an Orwellian fashion.
I've never seen science disprove the possibility of anything, because it relies on observation. We can assume and make conjectures, but it is neigh impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. We can prove that many things do, but the reverse is all but a pipe dream.
Key words being "with a valid search warrant." If someone has cause to investigate me, sure, investigate me. But I should not appear on a database that they can just troll a gill-net through and discover that I match a stereotype or generality that then makes me a suspect. For them to get a warrant, they have had to convince a judge, which agreed may be easy to do as the subject has no chance to defend against the warrant, but that then creates a lengthy paper trail and requires that the request meet standards that have been set by years of precident.
It's not necessarially a matter of 'are they listening' but rather 'should they have the legal right to' that is the more poignant question. Should the government be able to listen to my phone calls? In my opinion, absolutely not. Should the government have my DNA on file? Why would they need it?
My fingerprints are on file in almost every precinct in California. Why? Because I do a lot of volunteer work with children and they want to make sure the people working with our youths don't have a history of disturbing criminal behavior, and if they do, to discover just who may be affected. This I am okay with -- it was voluntary and I can see the direct need for such a thing to exist.
However, again in my opinion, the potential for abuse far outweighs the benefit of allowing any governmental body to listen to my phone calls, read my email, or force my ISP to keep logs of when and how I connected to the internet, what I did while I was there, and gather even more invasive information.
'When it's applied to everybody, it is fair, and frankly you wouldn't even know it was going on.'
I would be greatly interested in a link to just who has had their data collected, and their collection methods. I do not want (and I am far from alone in this) the government keeping tabs on me or archiving my personal habits into some large database that will be used against me in the future. I have never been indicted nor found guilty of any crime and as such there is no reason for the government to retain such information.
Unfortunately, in what court would they sue? And for what kind of specified damages?
Awareness and negative publicity seem to be the only tools we have against them, in a world-wide sense, and negative publicity seems to have only been doing so much. I really hope there is some way to file a lawsuit, but until the RIAA and MPAA (and most other *AA's) get some stern reprimands from the American public (because we know the government won't do it), there's going to be nothing but a continuation of the downward spiral.
I'm sure it's obvious to most any/.'er, but isn't this one of the largest (and longest-running) examples of why the lack of transparency in our government is a bad thing? "We're suing you for helping the government!" "No you can't, your prosecution relies on State Secrets."
I have the feeling this type of situation is going to becoming more and more prevalent in the upcoming years.
Of course I'm sure the reality is different than as reported, the ideals presented in TFA are exactly what the internet was born to be, and in many opinions, was supposed to be.
There are not enough soldiers, guns, or bombs to kill people into submission.
I beg to differ. Look how fast the USA was changed after 9/11 -- didn't even need bombs for that. The American people sure laid down and submitted to quite a few things after that. USA Patriot Act, the DMCA? Even before 9/11, the average American didn't care enough to do anything but sumbit to the effects of these and other bills, let alone what we see our government doing (NSA wiretapping, secret prisons, et cetera).
Whether I agree or not with the government, it looks like the majority of this country passively went along for a great while. I call that submission.
That implies, however, that the overwhelming "apathy party" doesn't rule victorious as it has in the past years. Where were people when our freedoms were being restricted? Cheering. Sure there's been a stink about the domestic spying, but will that increase the number of people at the polls over the next few years? Doubtful.
It's a sad fact that the majority of Americans, as shown by survey after poll after questionairre after test group shows, just don't care about what their leaders are doing enough to say anything.
Luckily here in California both parties need to be informed of the recording, but somehow they've gotten approval to say "I'm just taking some notes here" or similar, which by your continued conversation means you've given your assent to the recording.
Not a pleasant fact.
Remember congress is pushing for ISP's to retain all kinds of consumer information, they may not have to break any laws to find out that you've been sending and receiving massive amounts of packets to known gaming boxes across the globe. I doubt they'd put the manpower together to do that in the near future, but the day they see that as viable and profitable grows ever closer.
... what's the difference between this and say, the state banning people from emailling out-of-country? Or from visiting foreign-based websites at all?
I wonder what kind of care and concern will go into the study of these creatures, though of course many I'm sure will be taken back for study.
I really wonder however if this will be used in the evolution vs creationism debate.
Thank you.
I can't believe a politician would publicly support such an obviously controversial proposal, let alone promote it as being a grand thing that will help the american workforce.
Thank you.
This is the stupidest waste of scientific funding I've seen in a long while, almost beating out the 'which toothpaste flows down a wooden plank' experiment they did back in '91.
Slashdot Mirror
Snake oil is snake oil, but free boobies? PRICELESS
Why was this never an issue with ICQ, or Yahoo!, all of which allow for easy communication, the building of profiles, et cetera? Popularity? I have little doubt that Y!'s impact was not as widespread as MySpace's, but this wasn't a problem when it was the first name on everyone's lips in the subject of 'internet.' Just wondering exactly what has changed between then and now?
Great.
I will be interested in seeing the BBC's take on the matter.
Having worked with patients with CF and MS, among others, I'm excited at the prospects of this new testing, but am waiting, as I have with so many other treatments in development (though granted this has a much higher chance of success), for actual clinical results, not just proposals.
Doesn't alcohol inhibit the brain's ability to pass information between the neurons? Though I know the study is not designed for this, it'd be interested to see if the additional 'signal boost' allowed for cells to overcome the added resistance. 2015: More beer, less drunk
Not that much in our legal system seems to make sense anymore, but doesn't this sound a bit odd? After all, if the site is not hosted, registered, or advertized in Washington, what right do they have to crack down on them just because it's viewable from there? Are we going to set up China-esque firewalls at the state borders? That'd be the only way to regulate traffic in such an Orwellian fashion.
I've never seen science disprove the possibility of anything, because it relies on observation. We can assume and make conjectures, but it is neigh impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. We can prove that many things do, but the reverse is all but a pipe dream.
People who agree with us used to be called cynics, but now sadly we're just called 'correct'
In Soviet Russia, Slash dots you!
Key words being "with a valid search warrant." If someone has cause to investigate me, sure, investigate me. But I should not appear on a database that they can just troll a gill-net through and discover that I match a stereotype or generality that then makes me a suspect. For them to get a warrant, they have had to convince a judge, which agreed may be easy to do as the subject has no chance to defend against the warrant, but that then creates a lengthy paper trail and requires that the request meet standards that have been set by years of precident.
It's not necessarially a matter of 'are they listening' but rather 'should they have the legal right to' that is the more poignant question. Should the government be able to listen to my phone calls? In my opinion, absolutely not. Should the government have my DNA on file? Why would they need it? My fingerprints are on file in almost every precinct in California. Why? Because I do a lot of volunteer work with children and they want to make sure the people working with our youths don't have a history of disturbing criminal behavior, and if they do, to discover just who may be affected. This I am okay with -- it was voluntary and I can see the direct need for such a thing to exist. However, again in my opinion, the potential for abuse far outweighs the benefit of allowing any governmental body to listen to my phone calls, read my email, or force my ISP to keep logs of when and how I connected to the internet, what I did while I was there, and gather even more invasive information.
I would be greatly interested in a link to just who has had their data collected, and their collection methods. I do not want (and I am far from alone in this) the government keeping tabs on me or archiving my personal habits into some large database that will be used against me in the future. I have never been indicted nor found guilty of any crime and as such there is no reason for the government to retain such information.
Awareness and negative publicity seem to be the only tools we have against them, in a world-wide sense, and negative publicity seems to have only been doing so much. I really hope there is some way to file a lawsuit, but until the RIAA and MPAA (and most other *AA's) get some stern reprimands from the American public (because we know the government won't do it), there's going to be nothing but a continuation of the downward spiral.
If only it were that easy. What an interesting world it'd be if /.ers ran it.
I'm sure it's obvious to most any /.'er, but isn't this one of the largest (and longest-running) examples of why the lack of transparency in our government is a bad thing? "We're suing you for helping the government!" "No you can't, your prosecution relies on State Secrets."
I have the feeling this type of situation is going to becoming more and more prevalent in the upcoming years.
I just wonder where it/we went wrong.
I beg to differ. Look how fast the USA was changed after 9/11 -- didn't even need bombs for that. The American people sure laid down and submitted to quite a few things after that. USA Patriot Act, the DMCA? Even before 9/11, the average American didn't care enough to do anything but sumbit to the effects of these and other bills, let alone what we see our government doing (NSA wiretapping, secret prisons, et cetera).
Whether I agree or not with the government, it looks like the majority of this country passively went along for a great while. I call that submission.
That implies, however, that the overwhelming "apathy party" doesn't rule victorious as it has in the past years. Where were people when our freedoms were being restricted? Cheering. Sure there's been a stink about the domestic spying, but will that increase the number of people at the polls over the next few years? Doubtful. It's a sad fact that the majority of Americans, as shown by survey after poll after questionairre after test group shows, just don't care about what their leaders are doing enough to say anything.
Luckily here in California both parties need to be informed of the recording, but somehow they've gotten approval to say "I'm just taking some notes here" or similar, which by your continued conversation means you've given your assent to the recording. Not a pleasant fact.
Remember congress is pushing for ISP's to retain all kinds of consumer information, they may not have to break any laws to find out that you've been sending and receiving massive amounts of packets to known gaming boxes across the globe. I doubt they'd put the manpower together to do that in the near future, but the day they see that as viable and profitable grows ever closer.
... what's the difference between this and say, the state banning people from emailling out-of-country? Or from visiting foreign-based websites at all?
I wonder what kind of care and concern will go into the study of these creatures, though of course many I'm sure will be taken back for study. I really wonder however if this will be used in the evolution vs creationism debate.
Thank you. I can't believe a politician would publicly support such an obviously controversial proposal, let alone promote it as being a grand thing that will help the american workforce.
Thank you. This is the stupidest waste of scientific funding I've seen in a long while, almost beating out the 'which toothpaste flows down a wooden plank' experiment they did back in '91.