I'm not affiliated with SoylentNews other than as a user. I have no access or control over the site itself.

However, from what I've seen the folks over there seem to be working hard to improve the site.

Assuming you're not a troll (and that's a big assumption based on the idiotic complaint you made), I'm sure that if you offer to help, the folks over there would be happy to have you.

There. FTFY

There are no posts from this jackass over at Soylent News.

There are many reasons I now prefer that site over /., but a lack of Bennett Haselton is definitely one of them.

You make me nostalgic for Phil Hartman. he was a gem.

TFS says: "Our culture evolves quickly — even going back 100 years would be a difficult transition to get used to"

I don't think that comparison is an apt one. Our culture does evolve quickly, but I'd posit that given the technological culture that's developed over the past 150 years or so, it would be much more difficult to adjust to the culture(s) of the past than of the future. No antibiotics, no ubuiquitous telecommunications infrastructure, much more primitive agricultural techniques, etc., etc., etc.

Unless you presume social, economic and technological collapse (which is possible, I guess) for the future, the world of 500 years from now would be more recognizable to a resident of the early 21st century than the world of even 200 years ago, IMHO.

I think the premise of the TFA is stupid. Yes, culture changes. And yes, we can incorporate such changes into our stories.

However, It seems to me that the essence of science fiction (or, as Heinlein also called it, "speculative fiction") is to identify a particular change in something. A change in culture, a scientific breakthrough, a technological innovation or some other event or idea, then explore how such a change could impact people, and tell a story which incorporates those implications.

Essentially, it's asking "What if...?" and examining the consequences, in human and technological terms, of the answer.

It's not necessary (in fact, in many cases, it will get in the way of telling the story) to create a completely new culture, unless that culture directly relates to the theme (answering the "What if...?" question) of the story.

If you think that manufacturers have such small profit margins, you're kidding yourself. And cross-licensing deals with big data aggregators could be huge money for that scum.

Also, those scenarios aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, friend.

Actually, what I think have the "suits" excited is the ability to things like identify what's in your refrigerator at any given time so they can send targeted ads to your (tracked) mobile device to buy crap you don't want while you're buying stuff you need. And to monitor your video/audio consumption habits for similar reasons (seamless ad insertion, product placements, etc., etc.).

When anything and everything can send data to the Internet, who do you think will be receiving such data?

Is it your position that it's impossible to determine impairment if it isn't alcohol related?

It seems to me that it's the skills required for safe driving that are at issue, and if those are impaired, there's a problem. If not, then it's not an issue (at least not with driving, which is what we're discussing).

I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to modify (if necessary, and I'm not sure that it is) sobriety tests to cover those skills (e.g, reaction time, coordination, object recognition, etc., etc.) and make a pretty good assessment of the subject's ability to safely operate a vehicle. If there's a positive result, further (blood, saliva, etc.) tests could be performed to confirm the result.

This would save time, money and, in many cases, stop needless invasions of privacy (e.g., forced body searches -- which breathalyzers, etc. are). I'm not sure what your objection to field sobriety tests might be, unless you work for a company that sells onsite testing kits. Please elucidate.

I used the NHTSA test regime as an example, not as the definitive test that must always be used by everyone, everywhere, for every test.

A field sobriety test doesn't care what substance you've been imbibing. It tests your current level of impairment. Which is what we should be looking at if the goal is to reduce injuries and fatalities on the roads.

Why waste all kinds of money on tests that may or may not be able to measure actual impairment? And that goes for alcohol too.

This is essentially what I was going to post. I set up a pod on a VM, and while I finally got it working (after assistance from one of the devs via IRC), if there's going to be real acceptance of Diaspora, it needs to deploy cleanly and automatically. This is not currently the case.

Another point that doesn't get enough attention is the lack of symmetrical bandwidth on consumer ISP links. This will limit both the utility and acceptance of any distributed app/protocol (social networking or otherwise). It's unlikely that will happen anytime soon, as that props up the status quo for the content arms of the big ISPs, so I think we're mostly SOL.

This is really a shame, as moving away from centralized models can allow greater flexibility and privacy. Others have mentioned privacy on this thread, but only in the context of which "friends" or others can see what and what sort of advertising is shown.

I'm a lot less concerned about which people I know can see photos of me smooching the giraffe at the zoo. I'm much more concerned that the folks who run these sites have access (and analyze such information ad infinitum, ad nauseam) to everything I might post, and even the sfuff I don't.

I wouldn't use it in such a discussion, but then I wouldn't use it in most discussions. But that's me, and you're not me. Carry on.