Why can't we have a "Photograph the MD Metro" page? That will stop 'em!

A month ago we mentioned India's suspicions that telecomm equipment from China might contain backdoors. There hasn't been any smoking gun on such speculation.

Then why do you put such speculation right up there with the headline?

Me thinks there is much propaganda in the above quote. India sees China as its competitor politically and economically. The Indians will always raise 'concerns', 'doubts' and 'fears' to confuse people... about the devious Chinese (or others they don't agree with). I would much rather pay attention to an EFF report than from a party that has a vested interest in see-ing the other guy fail.

To return to our discussion: offending a people's faith IS free speech. Making fun of the Holocaust IS free speech. The fact that some people are offended should not be a factor. Where do we stop otherwise?

Don't get me wrong, I support the freedom of speech, but this is not it. Where do we stop otherwise? In fact, we do not start such stuff at all. We show higher deference and respect for others and their beliefs. We elevate our discussions to higher logic and reason instead of shock-jock tactics.

To the people who are protesting and the Pakistani Government's knee-jerk reaction, they too are handling it poorly. They should instead make their own statement - something to the effect of "this act intentionally hurts the feelings of Muslims all over who are sick'n tired of being dragged into any foolish thing any 1 person does in the name of their faith. It does not build a constructive conversation about the real issues and promotes anti-Islam feelings under the guise of some higher principle. We urge people not to participate as a show of support to the vast silent majority of Muslims who feel offended."

It is incredible to me that offending a people's faith is seen as a glorious example of free speech. When did that happen?

When is it okay to make fun of the Holocast or deny so many lives lost? When is it okay to keep offending a people when you know that it is something they hold in high esteem?

It is a sad commentary that our world equates these things with free speech. How about we really exercise our free speech and not feed these trolls. How about some speech to say that when people hold something sacred, it is not appropriate to defile it.

The East India Company too started by securing an 'open' route to India... and what did they end up doing? China pursues a police of soft diplomacy - hey, we'll help you solve your problem today if you remember that we may call upon your service at our time of choosing. Look at the natural resources they are garnering for their future in Africa, see how they would rather work (which admittedly may run from legit to underhanded) with countries over the long haul and not just for short term expediency. The time for invasions and wars is long gone - today's invasions are based upon creating false (and often inappropriate) desire, data (to support it) and doubt (to refute any objections) backed by a big stick that is rarely (if ever used). Accuracy and honesty have nothing to do with it. Desire brings the participants together. Data sets the limits of their dialogue. Doubt frames their questions and malcontent. There is always a dissident somewhere here. Here on slashdot, he goes by the name of Anonymous coward. Damn them trains! Damn 'em!

...even a geographical 'sixth sense' akin to a GPS iPhone app in the brain.'

The possibilities for such an interface are amazing yet I have to say that I really find it distasteful when 'product placement' intervenes in an otherwise fun comment. It casts a pall over the entire comment and denigrates it to marketing-speak.

Just had to say - I loved the 'voting' example to explain privacy.
Effective and simple to bring up in day to day discourse!
+1 mod.

Before he became president in 2001, George W. Bush would regularly send emails to both his father President George Bush Snr, now 84, and his mother Barbara Bush, now 83. Mr Bush's online credentials took a hit in 2006, however, when he said that he had used "the Google" to pull up maps. Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist with close ties to the Obama campaign, laughed heartily at Mr McCain's technological travails. "It's just amazing," he told The Daily Telegraph. "It's very hard to even think about someone who doesn't know how to use the internet. It's like, 'Really?' My five-year-old niece can use the internet. She knows how to go to nickelodeon.com and play her games." The interview could be politically damaging, he added. "The tough part is that if one of the concerns voters have is that you are out of touch with how they live, what they want, the problems they face, then this only reinforces that notion. "He's a hero for what he did 35 years ago, but that doesn't necessarily make him the kind of president we want today. Here's somebody who is in many ways very disconnected from where people are." [1]

Or watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zovJfeHj-Uc

I find it spectacular that McCain takes these positions with nary a sprinkle of what the people want. Who is advising him? And why doesn't he get some better people?

I support Net neutrality in the broader context but there are still very valid points to be made on the opposite side... yet, all we hear are sound bites that do not further the argument and worse, detract from the real provisions that make for a good governance.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2403704/John-McCain-technology-illiterate-doesnt-email-or-use-internet.html

So what is the energy consumed during production for one of these LED lights?
If we're just using more energy per unit during manufacture, then what is the energy payoff balanced vs. the number of hours these will remain in service?

Good point - perhaps my experience has seen too many such instances... Naked pics at 15, underage drinking at 18, sexual poses at 21-23... all neatly captured on a MySpace/Facebook/etc. page. Not to mention friends/peers who glamorize promiscuity, drugs etc.

It is amazing to see how many kids raise their eye brows when the light bulb goes off and they realize that a picture sent out is completely out of their control. Anyone can post it anywhere... or Photoshop it anyway.

Contrast that to another person who has none of such behavior in her background. Who really stops to check what circumstances let to the 'inappropriate' behavior? Patterns that are established, reputations based on a limited public image does impact the hiring (or other) decision because they are easily defended as disqualifiers. The importance of 'image management' cannot be emphasized enough in a world that's increasingly competitive. In my humble opinion, it is really a lifestyle choice yet sadly, not even discussed with teens today. Easy to get into, very hard to get out of.

My experience with High Schoolers has been that:

1. Teens today are quite easily manipulated into many things that earlier cohorts may have resisted. Perhaps a changing of the times, where a media-driven culture sends out messages of 'everything is cool, the more 'kinky' the better...'

2. Don't understand the ramifications of a compromising photograph.
When 'everything goes', then who cares about a photo taken without a thought of its unintended usage. Not to mention, how easy it is for someone to pass the photo around. In one of my classes, I invited an HR person who explained how easy it was to take a picture and massively publish it... and pop up just at the wrong time for when a job offer may be at hand.

3. I deal with law enforcement at times and they say that the #1 way to entrap kids, especially girls, is to have them either do something (e.g., nude webcam, pics etc.) for which they know they will be in trouble with their parents. Once a predator has established this sort of blackmail, the poor kid will end up forced into far worse things.

I don't like this porn law being used this way because it detracts from the real issue(s) at hand. Yet, I can see that law may not fit the bill entirely in such cases. I would instead favor a system which educates kids/teens better and a social system that encourages kids towards greater self-esteem and understanding of such things by informing them of the bad and very real consequences for teens who made reckless choices.