Spork Boards

Loonie Legislators and that Wacky Webernet Thingo

John Willoughby's Avatar Picture John Willoughby – December 31, 2007 10:13PM Reply Quote
The topic that just keeps on giving.

El Jeffe – May 07, 2009 10:19AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
I have not sat through all of that. But it's well done. I would prefer to just read the text.
I think it will be next to impossible to reverse the data collection.

I swing wildly on this topic.
On one hand, I am very private and no one needs to know a thing about me. Period. I remember in High School a teacher asking why I had to go to the principles office, when I returned. In front of the whole class. Kind of a snotty "What did you get in trouble for." I just looked at her matter of factly and said "It's simply none of your business". And it was not, regardless of her belief that the teacher possessed the power. That sent her into a boil and said to never speak to her in that way again. I told her "The fact that you have a problem with it being none of your business is of no concern to me"

That's my basic take on my private things. It's none of anyone's business unless I let them in on it.

On the other hand, I also think that everyone can know EVERYTHING about me and I would not give a damn. It would be somewhat of a relief to have total knowledge. I am reminded of Sting's song on that topic....Still know nothing bout me.

As for CCTV, I like it from a personal protection and control aspect. I don't like it from a government big brother aspect. I WOULD like to see cars have CCTV/DVR built-in so as to reduce or more sharply hone legal matters resulting from accidents and such. I even have this weird idea that I'd like every car's velocity to be digitally displayed on the front and back at all times. In green when adhering to the speed limit, yellow when 1-10 mph (or a %) over, and red above that. To either adjust speed limits to what people really drive, or if everyone is in total agreement, just make it easier to give tickets to offenders. I've always wondered why they can restrict drug paraphernalia (bongs) because they can only be used to break the law, but cars can go 150+ mph. I would be all for limiting speed to the legal limit electronically, via GPS sensors and such... OR AGAIN... adjusting the speed limit to something reasonable. But, I digress.

If we do get AWAY from credit/electronic payments, perhaps having cash only will help get out of people having so much easy debt issues?

We were just talking about this at lunch. Get a job where you are paid in cash, and not report it to the IRS might be the biggest pay raise one could achieve. And, not support a government that you might not agree with - like one that surveils so much.

No. I have not read 1984, either. Just FYI.

John Willoughby – May 07, 2009 11:25AM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
Quote
El Jeffe
I WOULD like to see cars have CCTV/DVR built-in so as to reduce or more sharply hone legal matters resulting from accidents and such.

"Uhh... sir, we've checked the car-cam for the car belonging to the CTO of Industrial Light and Magic. It confirms that his car was destroyed by the Cloverfield Monster, as he reported."

YDD – May 07, 2009 11:32AM Reply Quote
Not to mention "Yes, your honour. We did indeed find that the head of physics at MIT was driving at a velocity exceeding 3e10 cm/sec, and we accordingly booked him for violating the laws of physics."

ddt – May 07, 2009 03:15PM Reply Quote
Not to mention "Yes, your honour. We did indeed find that the head of physics at MIT was driving at a velocity exceeding 3e10 cm/sec, and we accordingly booked him for violating the laws of physics."

on the contrary! regularly seen at MIT: "3e10 cm/sec -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!"

ddt

tliet – May 07, 2009 07:45PM Reply Quote
The problem with endless data collection and storage is that there's no context. Just like putting a intrusion detection system on your border router/firewall gives you nothing but false positives drowning out the real problems, en masse data collection and storage doesn't help.

The point of the film is that what is being done in the name of anti-terrorism measures is basically laughable, if the eventual consequences weren't so scary.

Word just came out that in my country, each and every month 250,000 requests for ip/e-mail/personal addresses are being generated by law enforcement. A quarter of a million times each month for 15 million people. In the comments I read surprised reactions by the very same people who always said that they had nothing to hide.

If this doesn't get stopped soon, we really end up in a non free society. Or the only thing that would really help is to disconnect yourself, something that people with bad intentions have already long done so I'm sure.

John Willoughby – May 08, 2009 06:37AM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
I think it's apparent that we don't want a free society, but a safe one.

rino – May 08, 2009 07:57AM Reply Quote
In America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich.
Well the illusion of privacy is a modern concept. For most of human presence we've been in small collectives where everyone knows everything about them. The growth of populations, combined with germs, guns, and steel whereby one individual can do mass amounts of damage to the population and infrastructure leads us to need the small collective ability to know a lot about what everyone is up to ... privacy in one's home, one's personal decisions are one matter. Privacy in the public sphere when it affects the population as a whole is on target IMO.

"The Government" is only as scary as you make it out to be... in democratic societies we can change the government ... "of the people, by the people" recall?

Trouble is, we are really more sort of an oligarchy in many cases, although that term is inadequate to describe how power, at the government level, is held, distributed, and exercised.

ARL (Moderator) – June 02, 2009 11:39PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
A $44.5 million censorship trial with no criteria for "success"...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/2009/06/03/1243708489312.html

stan adams – June 03, 2009 04:57AM Reply Quote
I could say it is poetic justice that the Greens are upset that there are no clear goals, the government is demonstrating complete disregard for economic efficiency, and the technology is horribly flawed, but the irony is too great.

Everyday I see more reasons to become more libertarian...

tliet – June 03, 2009 06:44AM Reply Quote
The alternative for green tech is going down the same dead end route, which is pretty much a dead end, but too far for most people to see. Green tech alone will not solve anything, it need to be combined with a change of our ways. Our current behaviour has also pretty much a dead end, destruction of natural resources needs to be calculated in economic value; the picture suddenly looks a lot better for green tech.

The alternative for censoring the internet is no sensoring, which worked pretty good.

stan adams – June 03, 2009 10:04AM Reply Quote
The problem is in the forced legislatuion in both cases. As I have said before, make the choices attractive and there is no need to use the heavy handed approach. I willing buy energy saving products but if I was prohibited from buying anything that was energy saving enough I believe I would react in the same way that many who are prohibited from getting to the sites want to: they attempt to subvert the prohibitions...

tliet – June 03, 2009 12:36PM Reply Quote
Agree about positive incentives. We'll have to see how the light bulb thing works out in Europe, the plain old bulb will be declared illegal to be sold after 2012.

ddt – June 03, 2009 12:38PM Reply Quote
how did we get rid of leaded petrol in the states?

ddt

El Jeffe – June 03, 2009 12:41PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
And what happened to Ethel?

(don't look Ethel!)

John Willoughby – June 03, 2009 02:05PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
>(don't look Ethel!)

It wuz too late.

El Jeffe – June 03, 2009 03:39PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
Ah, those innocent days. Between that and "My ding-a-ling", those were youthfully, fun songs.

Mokers (Moderator) – June 04, 2009 01:36PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
The problem with green tech is that people somehow mistaken it for being less expensive. Even with government subsidies, it is more expensive. The whole idea about green jobs is asinine. Tliet, very nice goals and all, but I lived without running water for a time. I have relatives that still don't have running water. Given the choice between heating up the earth and raising the standard of living for the poorest nations, there is really no discussion for me. The earth was around for billions of years before humans, and will be around for billions of years afterward.

stan adams – June 04, 2009 02:12PM Reply Quote
Thanks Mokers.

Oh, btw, if Al Gore gets to make millions off selling carbo credits, why does the "green collar workforce" only command a poverty level wage? http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/04/news/economy/green_jobs/index.htm

And further, if C02 is a bad for people as tetra-ethyl lead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra-ethyl_lead#Toxicity why not eliminate on of the largest source of CO2...

I think market based solutions will work better: http://www.asiaforestnetwork.org/pub/pub77.pdf (of course there are those who prefer some ways to reduce CO2 that were practiced in SE Asia... http://www.nowpublic.com/hospitality_khmer_rouge_style_photo_by_jordan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2009 02:12PM by stan adams.

tliet – June 04, 2009 08:54PM Reply Quote
It really depends on what is defined as 'expensive'. Currently it's still relatively 'inexpensive' to mine oil and coal, although the cost yield ratio has changed for the worse considerably in the last 25 years, it takes more and more energy to actually get it out of the ground. Up to a point where it's no longer cost effective, compared to more sensible approaches. Of course, the current energy industry wants to make us believe this is a looooong way off, but really, as the writer of that blog post asks himself, how long can we afford not to explore alternatives?

The first step I'm taking myself is getting new glazing installed; simple stuff that goes a long way in making the house more energy efficient and it creates jobs along the way.

As for more sustainable building for example, initially it's more expensive to build highly energy efficient homes, but how long can we afford not to rid ourselves from an unsustainable energy sector that's run by the mafia?

Simple ideas like this one, a cardboard oven go an extremely long way for the 3rd world. I'm not sure what the availability of running water has to do with the need to cut down energy use (or use of alternative energy) because I don't think they exclude each other.

Another question to ask; why not try to live more in balance what nature has to offer us?

stan adams – June 05, 2009 06:57AM Reply Quote
Believe me I try mightily.

I have my house all CFL'ed and even more than a smattering of LEDs (the blue glow is still pretty god awful...)

I am thisclose to buying a diesel Jetta from my neighbor.

I stomped my feet and got very close to SUING my local school district when decided to use natural gas in a furnace instead ground source heat pumps.

Personal choices based on smarts are what are needed, not a heavy hand...

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login