You are not, however, free to make that decision for others.
You're right, that's the government's job.
Also, consider that while gaining scientific knowledge and insight may not always lead to a financial return, it does help to build a more detailed and thorough understanding of the world/universe in which we live. This knowledge may be used to gain more knowledge, and so on, until the knowledge is useful to some real-world application. Things that are "pure-research" now, may be a catalyst for important discoveries down the road.
The following is off the Joost FAQ Page (requires a login ID):
Joost(TM) is a streaming video application, and so uses a relatively high amount of bandwidth per hour. In one hour of viewing, approximately 320Mb data will be downloaded and 105Mb uploaded, which means that it will exhaust a 1Gb cap in 10 hours. Also, the application continues to run in the background after you close the main window. For this reason, if you pay for your bandwidth usage per megabyte or have your usage capped by your ISP, you should be careful to always exit Joost(TM) client completely when you are finished watching it.
I believe that smalltime is accepting cans of spam to fuel their "Find-the-Spam" game. They're capitolizing on the idea that this is obviously something that only a hobo would eat, and turning it into a fun game.
PS. - For added entertainment, try the text version!
"There is no practical application of owning a protocol type droid"
What about to replace minimum wage workers at fast food restaurants, or other menial jobs. If you only had to pay $5000 up front, and let's say $5000 in repairs over a year, that'd cost you about $10,000. Now, minimum wage is around we'll say $6/hr, and let's say that this place of business is open for 15 hours a day, 7 days a week, so 6($)*15(hours)*7(days)*52(weeks)=$32,760/year for a single minimum wage employee to be available during normal business hours. So, for the price of one Human, you could have three Droids. So, even at $10,000 up front and $5,000 in repairs per year, you could afford two droids. Also, after one year, the cost savings increases even more, because all you have to pay for are repairs and electricity to charge them, or fuel or whatever. Now, this is not having a droid in the home, but as you mentioned they could also be sent as helpers for the elderly or disabled, which I'm sure that the insurance companies would see the cost/savings over a worker that gets paid much more than $6/hr.
Another thing to note would be that when pc's first came out, didn't some people wonder why one person would need so much computing power in their own home? With robots, I'm sure that if there is a standardized set of hardware (reasonably priced), and one can use some programming language to program these things, that there will be hobbyists to build and program these things. That is certainly not unreasonable, especially if you look at something like the battlebots (yes, they are remote controlled, but do have quite a bit of room to program controls, features, etc.). Battlebots are expensive to build, and are designed to be destroyed, but people build them anyways. So, it is not strictly necessary that these things have any real uses right away, but it would probably be helpful to standardize enough of them to make it easier/cheaper for hobbyists who want to build/program.
They get around that by giving you some server space on their servers that you "rent out." Which they say is similar to having a physical space in Russia. So, when you download something from allofmp3, the work is initially stored on that server space that you are "renting out," and then you download it from there. So, one could argue that you the sale is being made there, and the work is being delivered there as well.
Am I the only one wondering how the CEO can be innovating things that he doesn't know are going on. It seems pretty odd to me. How can he promote "stealth innovation" and expect to keep a handle on what's going on in his business? What if the people innovating sealthfully are idiots? Not that I have anything against this particular idea, but it strikes me as odd. And how can he take credit for this?!?
That's interesting, I submitted the story yesterday at noon, and hadn't seen anything new on it. But reading the update is also quite interesting, because the issue remains that the voting machines which are currently in place, and have no paper trail, will stay there as they are. The proposal that passed leaves it to the "next generation" of machines, and does not seem to affect the ones currently in place. So, this story is still relevant, because those problematic machines are still in place, and will stay there.
Bronfman insists that, after a stern talking-to, his children have suffered the full consequences of their actions.
I'm confused, the full consequences? So either his kids are all out hundreds of thousands of dollars, or now all you get for copyright infringement is a "stern talking-to."
I don't think that the ISP's will ever want to give us what we're paying for. I could see them blocking all BitTorrent traffic, and re-writing the TOS contract before opening up the bandwidth. Capacity will be increased, there's no doubt about that, but I don't think it will be used to open up this sort of traffic.
If the Average Joe sees this site and it's claims of fast and free HD vid's, and he's on Comcast, or the like, then he will be dissapointed. After perhaps the third video he'll say, 'that was neat,' and give up, or he might complain to somebody about it, either the ISP or the video service. That said, I generally start out a torrent, and let it stew for hours or days, because I have other things to occupy my time, and I will get what I want eventually.
While you do have some good points, I'd like to point out a couple of things from TFA:
In a demonstration last week, the company showed a crisp, clear, DVD-quality clip that began streaming only seconds after the download was started.
Isn't it possible that they've figured a way around the streaming issue by requiring the chunks downloaded to be sequential?
Users can upload video either to the central server or they can share a video among a select group of friends by creating a private "trackerless" torrent.
So, it seems that they use a central server for keeping these things alive.
I do agree with your points about the bandwidth usage outside of the actual download, but I guess that's the price you pay for good quality video.
One other thing that I'd like to ask is what about all the bandwidth throttling by the ISP's of torrents?
The difference here is not the quality of the copy you make, but the fact that the station has paid to license the work for redistribution.
AFAIK radio stations don't pay for that right. In fact, the record companies generally send out advanced copies of CD's to the radio stations to play. Radio is a free advertisement for the record company of their artist.
There is a big difference between P2P downloading and radio, in that with the P2P you can download the entire album and play it over and over again at your leisure. This is not something you can do with radio.
I wonder why allofmp3.com is being shut down as opposed to being allowed to come into complacence. Ok, so I don't wonder, it just pisses me off. Still, it doesn't make any logical sense that they are simply shut down for this - they were following the law of their country, and they weren't breaking any US laws by allowing downloads from this country. And since the IFPI wasn't dealing with them, what else were they supposed to do? Shouldn't the changes happen at the ROMS level and then filter down to allofmp3?
Although, I guess it makes sense if you don't use any logic...
That's all well and good that Russia had bad intellectual property laws, and licensing practices, and they would like to fix those practices and laws in order to enter the WTO. The problem here is that they are, instead of trying to work with allofmp3.com, trying to shut it down. Allofmp3.com was doing what it needed to do by getting licensing from ROMS, and since in Russia, that is the entity that gives the licensing, why is the problem with allofmp3.com and not with ROMS? When ROMS changes how it does business, and plays nice with the international recording organization, shouldn't allofmp3.com be given the fair and proper chance to obtain a new license?
If you are following the laws of the country, and the international bodies deem your country's laws to be bad, shouldn't you have the opportunity to change your behaviors to be in compliance with the law? or should you simply be tossed in jail?
It doesn't sound like you've read "Notes from Underground." Liza didn't want to be a prostitute, just the same way I'm sure girls today don't grow up thinking "I want to be a porn star." My guess is that some of them end up there out of necessity. In Liza's case she had some debt to the brothel she was at, who she repaid with her service. She was not paid, she got room and board, and service against her debt. She pretended that she was ok with it, and that it empowered her, but that was a facade. She probably could have managed another way out, but the "Underground Man" was in no position to help her himself.
Also, I was in no way implying that I felt that these people are exploited, what I was doing was simply pointing out that the idea of sexism, and exploitation can be removed from the idea of religion.
As far as your comment about the "social services," yes, that is dumb. While I agree that there must be a line drawn between the actions you take and what you allow for the police, etc., I disagree entirely with the idea that it is "out of our hands." That is lazy, and dangerous. If you were being robbed, would you show the robber to your safe, and open it for them? would you sit there quietly and not say anything? If they were unarmed, would you try and stop them? In some states, it is legal for you to shoot and kill a trespasser on your property, and in most it is perfectly legal for you to defend yourself in the best way possible to neutralize the threat. Once you have been robbed, have fun dealing with the police, and explain to them why you left the door unlocked, and why you opened the safe for the crook too!
If you don't take a stand where it is appropriate to do so, and leave it up to somebody else, then what is the point of having values and morals. There is no excuse really for not speaking up when it is appropriate to do so, and leaving it up to the "authorities" is weak, and it is a cop-out. That is a part of your contract as a citizen.
The "Underground Man" by the way, shows us the way not to live, he does everything wrong, and makes a fool of himself. But, at least he makes a fool of himself, instead of saying nothing at all.
The only possible reason to want to curtail freedom of speech is to maintain a tighter control on a domestic population, which falls right in line with the current Republican agenda, so it's no surprise that that's what he wants, but I'm surprised even he would come right out and say it.
I think that a different type of person might be interested in said project. Someone who would like to contribute to the community in a different way than contributing code. So, this would be helpful to the rest of the community who does contribute code, because it creates a sort of protection for them, and might be easier to come by than money.
For example, I have a friend who works in the patent office looking at software patents, she doesn't want to write her own code, instead to look over others' code and all of the legal aspects of giving that person/company a patent for that code. That is the type of person would be able to contribute to such a project without contaminating the community at the same time.
Why must the idea of sexism be tied to the idea of Christianity?
In Dostoevsky's "Notes From Underground," the 'Underground Man' chastises the young prostitute at the brothel. He is not a Christian, but sees that she is being exploited. In this particular situation, she chose to go to this place, do this kind of work, and claims to be ok with it. But, as he finds out, she really has no idea what that place takes away from her. She was simply looking for a way to repay a debt that she had, and to get away from her family. She thinks that she is in charge of her own will, even though she has no choice when somebody walks in the door with some money, and requests to see her. She will live a short, disparate life, that will leave her alone and forgotten in the end.
But since we are all dependent on this style of society and things aren't gonna change soon, here is a more down to earth approach: do your job you were instructed to do, and let social services deal with the morals. That's their job, and today's society has specialized authorities just for those things.
That is just about the most braindead thing I've heard this week. Thanks for reminding me once again why things continue to get worse in this country: everybody expects somebody else to change the situation for them. Oh, and who the hell is "social services"? And do you really want them "dealing with these things"?
I realize it's probably against your religion to read these two philosophers, but I encourage you to sneak a peek while your God isn't paying attention.
There are simply too many variables to declare some certain action (a categorical imperative) to be the Right Thing. You eventually get to the point where you are now, confused about how to proceed.
At what point in the OP's explanation of the situation did he suggest that he was religious? Having read a good deal of both of those philosophers, they both tend to suggest that you create your own set of values and morals to live by, and that you should give them some serious thought. The OP is not asking us about the validity of his morals, but some guidance in a particular situation. Also, both of those philosophers would note that as there is rarely a right and a wrong way, and while still making the decision for yourself, gathering other's views may be insightful.
That said, I could fairly easily see the view that sexist materials may be morally objectionable to an atheist, who has given some serious thought to their set of values. If you feel that someone is being exploited, then you may have a moral issue with that. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with any of this, just that I think that you may be oversimplifying the OP's values, boiling them down to, 'God says it's bad, so I guess it's bad.'
Also, both Nietzsche and Sartre put a lot of emphasis on moral responsibility. So, isn't the OP doing the responsible thing here in asking for other's opinions of the situation?
I was in the same boat as you, just wanting too much out of a mobile phone. I just picked up the Nokia 770 and it does just about everything you mentioned in your dream device - except that it can't make phone calls. The idea is that you tether a small cheap mobile phone to it via bluetooth and connect to the net that way (or wifi). It runs Debian, and X, with maemo as the UI.
I'm more than pleased with this thing so far, and when I get my next phone in a month, the only thing that it needs to do is have a decent data connection with bluetooth DUN. I think that the really nice thing about this is that it detaches your data needs from your cell needs. Smartphones are nice in that they are a nice all-in-one device, except that the small ones have tiny screens that are useless for images/web, and the big ones you have to lug around a big, bulky phone with you everywhere. With a separate device, you can have a small phone, that does that job really well, and a separate web-browsing device, with a nice big screen, that you can leave at home when you don't need it.
Geez, I hate to sound like an advertisement for this device, but it's pretty sweet. (I have no affiliation with Nokia or maemo.org.)
Science Friday on NPR ran a segment on Bigfoot just a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, Bigfoot is plausible as a real creature. I'm not one of those "believers" either, and I was a bit upset when I looked at the title of the podcast, but Dr. Meldrum makes a compelling argument for the existence of Bigfoot.
My biggest fear would be that the system works, and we start getting messages from 5 years from now 8 years from now, but ten years from now...nothing.
So, what incentive would the people of the future have for sending us information? Wouldn't there be a huge inherent risk involved in sending back information that would have a direct effect on the present (not to say that it would happen like that)?
Ok, so let's pretend that this system works and is developed to the point of being able to send and receive messages. Now, let's assume that sometime after this device has begun to work, and test messages sent and received, that some sort of tragedy strikes the future, which has a drastic impact on the course of the future. Now, a group of people decide that this is bad, and they would like to prevent it from happening, so they send back a message. The group of people who receive the message act on the information and prevent said tragedy. Now, what happens to the people of the future?
Two possible situations (of many, many others), the first is that magically reality is altered for those belonging to the future from where the message originated. The second situation is that reality does not alter for those people of the future, and instead a fork is created where an alternate series of events happens. The issues with the first situation are that bad things could stop happening, and this would not be good for the world. The world needs bad things to happen, and so do people, to keep things interesting, and to keep a balance. Also, what happens to those people as reality changes, could it eventually do damage as reality keeps changing?
The issues of the second situation, is that we now have two distinct forks of the future, and how can we be sure that we are receiving information from the proper fork? Would those forks whose path are not taken be annihilated? As they sent a message and it was received and not acted upon, which then changes the future still because the information is there.
In short, while it may be tempting to send messages back in time that could save lives, would the risks be worth it, and would it actually help anything?
Slashdot Mirror
You are not, however, free to make that decision for others.
You're right, that's the government's job.
Also, consider that while gaining scientific knowledge and insight may not always lead to a financial return, it does help to build a more detailed and thorough understanding of the world/universe in which we live. This knowledge may be used to gain more knowledge, and so on, until the knowledge is useful to some real-world application. Things that are "pure-research" now, may be a catalyst for important discoveries down the road.
The following is off the Joost FAQ Page (requires a login ID):
I believe that smalltime is accepting cans of spam to fuel their "Find-the-Spam" game. They're capitolizing on the idea that this is obviously something that only a hobo would eat, and turning it into a fun game.
PS. - For added entertainment, try the text version!
What about to replace minimum wage workers at fast food restaurants, or other menial jobs. If you only had to pay $5000 up front, and let's say $5000 in repairs over a year, that'd cost you about $10,000. Now, minimum wage is around we'll say $6/hr, and let's say that this place of business is open for 15 hours a day, 7 days a week, so 6($)*15(hours)*7(days)*52(weeks)=$32,760/year for a single minimum wage employee to be available during normal business hours. So, for the price of one Human, you could have three Droids. So, even at $10,000 up front and $5,000 in repairs per year, you could afford two droids. Also, after one year, the cost savings increases even more, because all you have to pay for are repairs and electricity to charge them, or fuel or whatever. Now, this is not having a droid in the home, but as you mentioned they could also be sent as helpers for the elderly or disabled, which I'm sure that the insurance companies would see the cost/savings over a worker that gets paid much more than $6/hr.
Another thing to note would be that when pc's first came out, didn't some people wonder why one person would need so much computing power in their own home? With robots, I'm sure that if there is a standardized set of hardware (reasonably priced), and one can use some programming language to program these things, that there will be hobbyists to build and program these things. That is certainly not unreasonable, especially if you look at something like the battlebots (yes, they are remote controlled, but do have quite a bit of room to program controls, features, etc.). Battlebots are expensive to build, and are designed to be destroyed, but people build them anyways. So, it is not strictly necessary that these things have any real uses right away, but it would probably be helpful to standardize enough of them to make it easier/cheaper for hobbyists who want to build/program.
They get around that by giving you some server space on their servers that you "rent out." Which they say is similar to having a physical space in Russia. So, when you download something from allofmp3, the work is initially stored on that server space that you are "renting out," and then you download it from there. So, one could argue that you the sale is being made there, and the work is being delivered there as well.
Here's the link to the initial correspondence (I think).
No, but then the clouds of smug will kill us all!!
Am I the only one wondering how the CEO can be innovating things that he doesn't know are going on. It seems pretty odd to me. How can he promote "stealth innovation" and expect to keep a handle on what's going on in his business? What if the people innovating sealthfully are idiots? Not that I have anything against this particular idea, but it strikes me as odd. And how can he take credit for this?!?
That's interesting, I submitted the story yesterday at noon, and hadn't seen anything new on it. But reading the update is also quite interesting, because the issue remains that the voting machines which are currently in place, and have no paper trail, will stay there as they are. The proposal that passed leaves it to the "next generation" of machines, and does not seem to affect the ones currently in place. So, this story is still relevant, because those problematic machines are still in place, and will stay there.
From the summary:
I'm confused, the full consequences? So either his kids are all out hundreds of thousands of dollars, or now all you get for copyright infringement is a "stern talking-to."
I don't think that the ISP's will ever want to give us what we're paying for. I could see them blocking all BitTorrent traffic, and re-writing the TOS contract before opening up the bandwidth. Capacity will be increased, there's no doubt about that, but I don't think it will be used to open up this sort of traffic.
If the Average Joe sees this site and it's claims of fast and free HD vid's, and he's on Comcast, or the like, then he will be dissapointed. After perhaps the third video he'll say, 'that was neat,' and give up, or he might complain to somebody about it, either the ISP or the video service. That said, I generally start out a torrent, and let it stew for hours or days, because I have other things to occupy my time, and I will get what I want eventually.
While you do have some good points, I'd like to point out a couple of things from TFA:
Isn't it possible that they've figured a way around the streaming issue by requiring the chunks downloaded to be sequential?
So, it seems that they use a central server for keeping these things alive.
I do agree with your points about the bandwidth usage outside of the actual download, but I guess that's the price you pay for good quality video.
One other thing that I'd like to ask is what about all the bandwidth throttling by the ISP's of torrents?
AFAIK radio stations don't pay for that right. In fact, the record companies generally send out advanced copies of CD's to the radio stations to play. Radio is a free advertisement for the record company of their artist.
There is a big difference between P2P downloading and radio, in that with the P2P you can download the entire album and play it over and over again at your leisure. This is not something you can do with radio.
I wonder why allofmp3.com is being shut down as opposed to being allowed to come into complacence. Ok, so I don't wonder, it just pisses me off. Still, it doesn't make any logical sense that they are simply shut down for this - they were following the law of their country, and they weren't breaking any US laws by allowing downloads from this country. And since the IFPI wasn't dealing with them, what else were they supposed to do? Shouldn't the changes happen at the ROMS level and then filter down to allofmp3?
Although, I guess it makes sense if you don't use any logic...
Actually, according to US copyright law, it is legal to download from allofmp3.com.
That's all well and good that Russia had bad intellectual property laws, and licensing practices, and they would like to fix those practices and laws in order to enter the WTO. The problem here is that they are, instead of trying to work with allofmp3.com, trying to shut it down. Allofmp3.com was doing what it needed to do by getting licensing from ROMS, and since in Russia, that is the entity that gives the licensing, why is the problem with allofmp3.com and not with ROMS? When ROMS changes how it does business, and plays nice with the international recording organization, shouldn't allofmp3.com be given the fair and proper chance to obtain a new license?
If you are following the laws of the country, and the international bodies deem your country's laws to be bad, shouldn't you have the opportunity to change your behaviors to be in compliance with the law? or should you simply be tossed in jail?
It doesn't sound like you've read "Notes from Underground." Liza didn't want to be a prostitute, just the same way I'm sure girls today don't grow up thinking "I want to be a porn star." My guess is that some of them end up there out of necessity. In Liza's case she had some debt to the brothel she was at, who she repaid with her service. She was not paid, she got room and board, and service against her debt. She pretended that she was ok with it, and that it empowered her, but that was a facade. She probably could have managed another way out, but the "Underground Man" was in no position to help her himself.
Also, I was in no way implying that I felt that these people are exploited, what I was doing was simply pointing out that the idea of sexism, and exploitation can be removed from the idea of religion.
As far as your comment about the "social services," yes, that is dumb. While I agree that there must be a line drawn between the actions you take and what you allow for the police, etc., I disagree entirely with the idea that it is "out of our hands." That is lazy, and dangerous. If you were being robbed, would you show the robber to your safe, and open it for them? would you sit there quietly and not say anything? If they were unarmed, would you try and stop them? In some states, it is legal for you to shoot and kill a trespasser on your property, and in most it is perfectly legal for you to defend yourself in the best way possible to neutralize the threat. Once you have been robbed, have fun dealing with the police, and explain to them why you left the door unlocked, and why you opened the safe for the crook too!
If you don't take a stand where it is appropriate to do so, and leave it up to somebody else, then what is the point of having values and morals. There is no excuse really for not speaking up when it is appropriate to do so, and leaving it up to the "authorities" is weak, and it is a cop-out. That is a part of your contract as a citizen.
The "Underground Man" by the way, shows us the way not to live, he does everything wrong, and makes a fool of himself. But, at least he makes a fool of himself, instead of saying nothing at all.
I think that a different type of person might be interested in said project. Someone who would like to contribute to the community in a different way than contributing code. So, this would be helpful to the rest of the community who does contribute code, because it creates a sort of protection for them, and might be easier to come by than money.
For example, I have a friend who works in the patent office looking at software patents, she doesn't want to write her own code, instead to look over others' code and all of the legal aspects of giving that person/company a patent for that code. That is the type of person would be able to contribute to such a project without contaminating the community at the same time.
Why must the idea of sexism be tied to the idea of Christianity?
In Dostoevsky's "Notes From Underground," the 'Underground Man' chastises the young prostitute at the brothel. He is not a Christian, but sees that she is being exploited. In this particular situation, she chose to go to this place, do this kind of work, and claims to be ok with it. But, as he finds out, she really has no idea what that place takes away from her. She was simply looking for a way to repay a debt that she had, and to get away from her family. She thinks that she is in charge of her own will, even though she has no choice when somebody walks in the door with some money, and requests to see her. She will live a short, disparate life, that will leave her alone and forgotten in the end.
That is just about the most braindead thing I've heard this week. Thanks for reminding me once again why things continue to get worse in this country: everybody expects somebody else to change the situation for them. Oh, and who the hell is "social services"? And do you really want them "dealing with these things"?
At what point in the OP's explanation of the situation did he suggest that he was religious? Having read a good deal of both of those philosophers, they both tend to suggest that you create your own set of values and morals to live by, and that you should give them some serious thought. The OP is not asking us about the validity of his morals, but some guidance in a particular situation. Also, both of those philosophers would note that as there is rarely a right and a wrong way, and while still making the decision for yourself, gathering other's views may be insightful.
That said, I could fairly easily see the view that sexist materials may be morally objectionable to an atheist, who has given some serious thought to their set of values. If you feel that someone is being exploited, then you may have a moral issue with that. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with any of this, just that I think that you may be oversimplifying the OP's values, boiling them down to, 'God says it's bad, so I guess it's bad.'
Also, both Nietzsche and Sartre put a lot of emphasis on moral responsibility. So, isn't the OP doing the responsible thing here in asking for other's opinions of the situation?
I was in the same boat as you, just wanting too much out of a mobile phone. I just picked up the Nokia 770 and it does just about everything you mentioned in your dream device - except that it can't make phone calls. The idea is that you tether a small cheap mobile phone to it via bluetooth and connect to the net that way (or wifi). It runs Debian, and X, with maemo as the UI.
I'm more than pleased with this thing so far, and when I get my next phone in a month, the only thing that it needs to do is have a decent data connection with bluetooth DUN. I think that the really nice thing about this is that it detaches your data needs from your cell needs. Smartphones are nice in that they are a nice all-in-one device, except that the small ones have tiny screens that are useless for images/web, and the big ones you have to lug around a big, bulky phone with you everywhere. With a separate device, you can have a small phone, that does that job really well, and a separate web-browsing device, with a nice big screen, that you can leave at home when you don't need it.
Geez, I hate to sound like an advertisement for this device, but it's pretty sweet. (I have no affiliation with Nokia or maemo.org.)
My reality doesn't contain a "Bill O'Reilly."
Science Friday on NPR ran a segment on Bigfoot just a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, Bigfoot is plausible as a real creature. I'm not one of those "believers" either, and I was a bit upset when I looked at the title of the podcast, but Dr. Meldrum makes a compelling argument for the existence of Bigfoot.
So, what incentive would the people of the future have for sending us information? Wouldn't there be a huge inherent risk involved in sending back information that would have a direct effect on the present (not to say that it would happen like that)?
Ok, so let's pretend that this system works and is developed to the point of being able to send and receive messages. Now, let's assume that sometime after this device has begun to work, and test messages sent and received, that some sort of tragedy strikes the future, which has a drastic impact on the course of the future. Now, a group of people decide that this is bad, and they would like to prevent it from happening, so they send back a message. The group of people who receive the message act on the information and prevent said tragedy. Now, what happens to the people of the future?
Two possible situations (of many, many others), the first is that magically reality is altered for those belonging to the future from where the message originated. The second situation is that reality does not alter for those people of the future, and instead a fork is created where an alternate series of events happens. The issues with the first situation are that bad things could stop happening, and this would not be good for the world. The world needs bad things to happen, and so do people, to keep things interesting, and to keep a balance. Also, what happens to those people as reality changes, could it eventually do damage as reality keeps changing?
The issues of the second situation, is that we now have two distinct forks of the future, and how can we be sure that we are receiving information from the proper fork? Would those forks whose path are not taken be annihilated? As they sent a message and it was received and not acted upon, which then changes the future still because the information is there.
In short, while it may be tempting to send messages back in time that could save lives, would the risks be worth it, and would it actually help anything?