I think the problem with that part of history was the state involvement in the surveillance. Which is different than something like dashcams in Russia that provide evidence to defend yourself in court against widespread insurance fraud and police corruption. Or security camera footage that is used to publicly shame someone for being a horrible person-- in contrast to imprisonment and execution from information gained by threats of the same for being complicit if you are found not to report the information to the state.

The biggest difference between these types of surveillance is that, in the case of the state, it is a third party to the actions talking place. The most a person recording the footage is removed from the actions in a "surveillance society" is a role of eye witness.

Well, there is quite a bit of history to read about. Mind giving me a starting point?

I'm not sure I'm a against this "surveillance society" anyway. I'm sure there are a number of downsides to it, but the emotion their sensationalist tile is trying to tap is the hatred of the "surveillance state". A much different thing.

I was wondering if perhaps it is nostalgia or just that it's an expectation now and there is no surprise at all. But yeah, it just doesn't seem as amusing or clever as it once was.

Relevant excerpt

Yeah, that's probably it. Sounds like about the right amount of time before it would be reported on Slashdot.

Yeah, that's out the FCCs jurisdiction to protect them from throttling.

Netflix. That is ultimately what all the support is about. A fear that they won't be able to stream shows at will. Now a 5 member panel has started down the path of control of the internet. It's amazing how much complaint I have seen from proponents about the 2 members that voted against it. Calling them unintelligent fuckwits or shills for corporate interests. Well That's the quality of the people on the panel. There is a complete disconnect celebrating them having control on one hand and saying nearly all of them are not qualified to make decisions about the internet on the other. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for limiting these large corporations that are basically monopolies. But A five member unelected group is not who I want to do it.

I feel like they are trying to tick us by keeping the green bars and slowing moving in the direction of beta.

I have text wrapping back over other text some places and text running off screen others. Buttons and links overlapping other content all over the place. Is it so hard to test this before you go live? Does the news for nerds site not have one person on staff that can handle a little css properly?

The problem is it wouldn't add water to the air-- at least enough to use enough of the thermal energy in the room.

It is perfect for the desert were there is low enough humidity and a never-ending supply of water to evaporate... oh, wait.

I understand a fear to speak negatively about them when you know they are listening.

Don't feel too bad, I don't think those even count as errors by slashdot submission standards. At least it was intelligible english.

Currently, it can only beam your PLA self a few inches to the left. By the looks of it, that vacuum system will likely prove inadequate-- leaving your PLA self standing in a pool of your original self that was slowing milled to death. Also, be sure that no matter how much it hurts, to stay perfectly still through the milling process.

Yes, pointless art-- that's the problem with it. Had it been good art it would have met one of the qualifiers GP mentioned. Nobody attacked art, they only attacked this one idea that was poorly executed.

Now I'm sure we can have long discussion arguing about what qualifies as good art, but wherever the line is, clearly this is below it and Stravinsky is above it. Anyone who wants to argue against that is just being difficult or trying to prove to others (or themselves) that they are an idealist.