Oh, and imagine something even more interesting - automation of accounting and legal departments, for example? IBM's Watson with a lawyer's database - not a lawyer itself, but potentially an extremely powerful tool in the hands of, say, RIAA? Apple? Monsanto? Hundreds or thousands of cases with only a handful of people to manage and represent company in courts? That's an interesting thought, don't you think?

Who is more likely to party - C*O's of Monsanto or people who own tractors and farms and being sued out of their pants by said Monsanto? It's not a question of automation per se, it's a question of wealth, power and sociopathy. And robots are tipping the balance faster and faster - imagine if corporations could automate lawyers?

Yeah, I've read it, liked the plot, but it's still a very schematic story that lacks really interesting characters (of course, that's even good for this kind of story - easier to identify oneself with the main character). But Vonnegut's "Player Piano" hit me much harder when I've read it - I think that ending of the book contains one of the most frightening insights into the human nature. Given such chance we would destroy ourselves gladly, meeting our slow, but inevitable extinction with a smile. Well, let's hope that some new frontier emerges before everyone who is not happy with our current direction is... excluded from the equation.

Ah, winter makes me pessimistic...

Actually, I was trying to say the same - for me "to show how are you doing something" is not at all equal to "to do said something". And the moment these people would feel that they can cut out the costs of that show - poof! It's gone. Hell, in such future the world of "Transmetropolitan" would look like a slightly chaotic Utopia.

Take any parasite - is it an enemy to its host? Or even simpler - do you feel any strong emotions towards all the animals who were killed to become the contents of your sandwich? They aren't clueless, but "enemy" is too strong a word for them - they consider common people only as food for their ambitions, as some common resource to fuel their careers. Only equals can be enemies, and they do not feel equal to "the people" in any way. We'll have to come up with some other term.

Yes, people should use their voting power to stop this insanity. Only catch here is that most of the people are coming to vote after watching some TV news/shows with the same prosecutor, and not after reading Slashdot. These same people then are found sitting in the jury box, listening to the same prosecutor, who then colorfully portrays the defendant as a master criminal, evil genius hacker on the level of Bond's villains. And the wheel continues to roll.

It is sad for me to say, but I think that it'll take more than one dead "computer guy" to really change this system. Insanity has to be seen and felt on the national level, with major news channels and talk shows picking up the story. Chances of that happening? Almost none.

Yep. I still find it very amusing that some people truly believe in some abstract "economic laws", sidestepping the question of human nature completely. Truth is that behind every business there are real people making decisions - top-level managers, their powerful friends and accompli... I mean, acquaintances and so on. And most of these people are only thinking in terms of personal status and gains. Exceptions are too rare to make any real difference. With powerful tools like laws, paid media and robotic workers (maybe even automated police force?) who needs to follow ancient rules of "free market" and "honest competition"?

Well, there are two established points of view on this problem - idealistic and cynical. Idealistic view says that after a while it would cost almost nothing to produce food, clothes, even housing for every living person, so it would became a part of the guaranteed social minimum. Luxuries (informational also, like newest music, books and other art) would cost real money, which would be available to small, but active part of humanity, but most of the people would be pretty happy with what they can get for free.

Cynical view says that only a tiny fraction of all people would still be entitled to more and more luxurious style of living (maybe even smaller than 1% of population), and their status would be reinforced through ever rising army of robotic workers, policemen and even soldiers. Maybe they'll keep a small batch of second-class citizens - high-level engineers, scientists, entertainers, servants and so on. Everyone else - well, tough luck, there's no more free resources in this world, and you don't have any money to pay for anything, including basics like food and living space. Death camps or even processing plants are going to solve this little problem quite effectively.

I think in the short run we'll have something in between - world elites are still like to show that they care for the "common folk", but in the long run - who knows? What's interesting is that dystopian future has more promise for us as a species - it's easier to move to the new frontiers when you just can't stand home any longer, than when your life is an endless holiday. So in order to eventually colonize other worlds we may have to rely more on people's greed, stupidity and other "bad traits", than on people's rationality and goodwill. Anyway, only time will tell how it will all work out in the end.

Sorry - this seems to be one of the typical mistakes of non-native English speakers. In my first language "psychical" is much closer in meaning to "psychological", rather than "future-telling". Still, a scene of Tarot reading by one brutal convict to another could look good in some Hollywood blockbuster, couldn't it?

If you encounter a lone hungry wandering bear in the woods, and you don't have any weapons on you - would you consider his claws or his teeth a bigger problem? But still, even if all system is borked up, the prosecutor plays much more active role in it - he has much more motivation to pursuit his goal, conviction of the accused. Jury is only determined to find the truth... by deciding guilt of the defendant on every charge that prosecutor put on him. And again, statistics shows us that it is almost impossible for jury to find defendant not guilty on all charges.

And even if defendant is acquitted, he is the lucky man here, like a winner of a lottery, or a miracle survivor... at least morally. Financially he could be almost broke - good lawyers cost much, everyone knows it. Prosecutor, on the other hand, loses almost nothing - he can always find another one "tough criminal" and terrorize... sorry... convince him to plead guilty, or throw a book at him before the jury again and again. So yes, there is a problem with the prosecutor - he is an active element in this scheme, while jury has much more passive role.

Well, let's not get into numbers far - even if Swartz would be found guilty only on one charge (and quite possibly more than one), he would still have to spend some time in prison with much more serious offenders. And, statistically speaking, his chances of acquittal were dim, to say the least. Well, OK, prisons in US are all happy gardens of bunnies-and-rainbows, and all inmates (and, more importantly, guards) are perfect gentlemen with bow ties and monocles. Staying in prison would help Swartz both physically and psychically... in some perfect fantasy world. But that's still not the point.

Quick quiz: when he gets out he is viewed by potential employers as a) a brilliant young man, who just made some wrong decisions in the past, but it's all forgiven and forgotten; or b) a felon, found guilty of several computer-related crimes? Guess which viewpoint would be prevalent? And what perspectives such future holds for him? Plus, even if he would spend not 35, but "only" 3-5 years in prison - how would he catch up with current technologies? Restore his skills and social connections? Do you want to be considered a friend of a known felon? So how many friends would he still have after this? So it's not the case of 50, 35 or even 5 years of prison - it's the case of maybe not ruined, but seriously maimed life anyway.

And "if the prosecutor overreaches, the case will collapse very quickly" - if that's true, why did 97% of accused in federal cases plead guilty in 2011? Not one case of "prosecutor overreach", right? Total transparency, responsibility and fairness all around, and every prosecutor is really afraid of his case collapsing, sure... in some perfect fantasy world.

So now I have a mental image of hundreds of dead Neanderthals mooning us with silent reproach. THANK YOU. Now, where's my brain-bleech...

Yes, they already use some confusingly advanced technology there.

Well, maybe someday that would help to create something like USB but without physical medium between two connected points? Yeah, I know, "no information can be transferred through QE", but still, who knows how else can we sidestep "obvious physical limitations"? Not now, but in 20, 50, 100 years from now? I'd like to imagine our world with such technology widely adapted, and I just can't - possibilities are truly mind-boggling. Ah, I just like news like this - helps to get out of winter depression a little.

First of all, speed of light in one medium differs from speed of light in another. So yeah, probably there is some immeasurably small difference in speed of signal in copper and glass. But of course main difference comes from interference and heating - you can pack more channels of information running much higher frequencies in the same space. Plus there may be some speed gain from changing electronic elements with optronic ones (standard transistor can change its state only this fast - maybe optronic equivalent can do it faster?), but I don't have real numbers on my hands right now and too lazy to search and compare them.