The intention of this, and many similar laws that have materialized in recent years is to effectively lower the burden of proof for detaining, questioning and ultimately convicting anyone who may or may be planning to 'perform terrorist acts' - an overly broad definition of which actually includes anyone who disagrees with current political thinking.
For example, under standard criminal law, suspects need to have actually performed a crime to be prosecuted.
Without an actual crime, there is the lesser charge of 'conspiring' to commit a crime. However, you still need strong evidence that some kind of criminal activity has, or is about to take place.
Laws like this one only require someone to publicly oppose the government, and unless they are a registered (in which case they are pretty much screwed anyway - their activities will no doubt be scrutinised), they can be detained without any evidence that they are actually considering doing anything of a crimnal nature.
This is, in my opinion anyway, a way of implementing harsh penalties for 'thought crime'. The only effect will be to cause resentment and to drive any non-mainstream political movements underground.

The sentiment portrayed by the author of that article is a very common one among IT workers. That somehow, our best efforts are undermined by the need for our work to be costed, audited and planned by external (to us) business interests.
I personally try and produce code that meets and exceeds the business requirement, and does so within the time-frame set by the business. The problem, I think is that software engineers, in general, are a bunch of perfectionists, and we like to hold off announcing a 'final version' until the last possible moment. (Google Mail was in beta for how long?)

What I have come to realize, though, is that it is not just the IT departments that feel this way. In general, there are some people in every department, of every company that belive that their performance would improve if only they had a greater measure of self-determination. Perhaps the number of people who feel this way is highest in IT, but it is certainly not exclusive to IT.
So what it comes down to, I feel, is that we are slowly drifting towards a business culture where the individual has more control over their job, and where sucess is measured by job satisfaction instead of economics.

At least, that's the direction I hope we are heading in.

Really?

Say what you like about the Sanyo, it is a pretty terrible looking bike, but the gocycle is definately as ugly, if not worse. On top of that, the gocycle looks like it would break in half if it ever hit a speed bump.

If you only have a single task to do, and weeks to do it, then you are 1) not being very prducttive, and 2) selling yourself short.
In every job I've had, I have always worked simultaneously on several projects, along with having to deal with client issues, documentation, R&D for the next version, meetings etc. You just need to throw yourself at more tasks, until you reach a level where you don't find yourself procrastinating for more than a few minutes at a time.

This is how I develop, and it works very well. My peers and managers are happy, because I am productive. I am happy because I don't feel like I'm procrastinating for long periods. Too much 'sitting on your hands' is boring, it makes the days drag on, and is not really helping you write good code. For me, that is what job satisfaction is all about.

If this is only a short term thing, why not rent a shiny new laptop for a few months. Not only will you be able to show it off at cafe's, but it will also be a tax-deductible expense.

As a bonus, I guess your 'partner' could use it to 'play games' while in bed.

I think it's great that someone is drafting some ground rules for what will undoubtedly become the 'future of warfare', but I wonder how this can possibly be enforcable in the real world.

The 1st generation robots will have the governor software, but once the second gen hits, made cheaply by a rogue state, then thigs will get complicated very quickly. And unlike nuclear weapons, which are kept under control because the materials and technology are relatively hard to come by, I reckon that death-bots will be made of far more readily available materials, and easily mass-produced.

There are rules of engagement now which many armies happily ignore, so how can the world enforce a rule that only ethical robots will be able to autonomously fire weapons?

Perhaps the software that allows the autonomous behaviour can be encrypted and protected in such a way that it is difficult to reverse-engineer, though once an enterprising hacker gets his hands on the hardware, it's only a matter of time before the open-source version, curiously missing the 'ethics governance' will be available as a .torrent somewhere.