Comment Re:Sure, send me an invite! (Score 1) 1223
Chill, thanks! Invite worked perfectly, looking forward to playing around with anything non-facebook.
Comment Re:Sure, send me an invite! (Score 1) 1223
Hi chill, if you're still willing and able, I'd love an invite. Thanks in advance!
jbarbur (gmail)
VeriSign Will Support DNSSEC In .com By 2011 39
alphadogg writes "VeriSign has promised to deploy DNS Security Extensions, known as DNSSEC, across all of its top-level domains within two years. DNSSEC is viewed as the best way to bolster the DNS against vulnerabilities such as the Kaminsky bug discovered last year. (Yesterday we discussed the workarounds coming into place until the US government signs the Internet's root zone.) DNSSEC has been deployed on top-level domains operated by Sweden, Puerto Rico, Bulgaria, Brazil, and the Czech Republic. Two larger domains — .org operated by the Public Interest Registry and .gov operated by the US government — are deploying DNSSEC this year."
Comment Re:Our long national nighmare is almost over (Score 1) 294
99% of people are idiots... so you would be in the 1%, I guess?
I guess I'm a bit more hopeful, because most of the people I know, even ones whose judgement I would never trust, aren't idiots - they are stressed, overworked, bombarded with propaganda (political and commercial) and their educations have been structured (not necessarily intentionally, though it certainly benefits the powerful) to produce obedient workers and "consumers", not free-thinking, critically-minded citizens.
Moreover, aside from those people who are driven to make politics or activism the central part of their lives (which, given work and stress, etc., simply isn't possible for many even if the desire is theere) for most people the sole opportunity to engage directly in politics comes one day every couple years. And the lead up to that day rarely includes much open-ended discussion; rather its shaped by intense propoganda carpet bombing.
There are lots of other factors; I think that one is automobile-oriented culture, which for all its possible benefits, has hurt democracy as well. For most people, casual daily contact with strangers is non-existent; when "community" becomes an abstract concept rather than a lived-in, concrete reality, how realistic is it to expect the average person to feel, at a deep level, a need to think or care about things outside their family, friends and job? Television, aside from its propaganda uses, produces similar effects (interfacing with reality and the community through media rather than concrete, face-to-face experiences).
The bottom line is that "most people" are perfectly capable of making informed and intelligent decisions about important issues, if they have time to think about them, the opportunity to discuss them, and have receieved (formally or just through life experience) an education that includes some real critical thinking skills
OK, rant off.
One final thing - the parent says "Representative to cast votes: congressman." in response to the previous post's suggestion of designated representatives in a direct democracy system. I read that suggestion very differently:
In place of (or in addition to) officials elected to a congress, one could have people you knew and trusted (your very politically knowledgeable friend, for example) act as proxies in a direct democracy system. For example, most of my friends don't really care about copyright law (except to the degree that they think RIAA lawsuits are total BS), but they know I'm interested and reasonably knowledgeable about it. If direct democracy meant people voted on every issue, you could conceive a system where my friends could grant me proxy power on copyright issues, subject to their review of my decisions.
I can see some dangers (e.g., an abusive husband demanding his wife's vote), although these dangers would probably be the same as in any absentee voting system. This seems like a pretty interesting idea.
I guess I'm a bit more hopeful, because most of the people I know, even ones whose judgement I would never trust, aren't idiots - they are stressed, overworked, bombarded with propaganda (political and commercial) and their educations have been structured (not necessarily intentionally, though it certainly benefits the powerful) to produce obedient workers and "consumers", not free-thinking, critically-minded citizens.
Moreover, aside from those people who are driven to make politics or activism the central part of their lives (which, given work and stress, etc., simply isn't possible for many even if the desire is theere) for most people the sole opportunity to engage directly in politics comes one day every couple years. And the lead up to that day rarely includes much open-ended discussion; rather its shaped by intense propoganda carpet bombing.
There are lots of other factors; I think that one is automobile-oriented culture, which for all its possible benefits, has hurt democracy as well. For most people, casual daily contact with strangers is non-existent; when "community" becomes an abstract concept rather than a lived-in, concrete reality, how realistic is it to expect the average person to feel, at a deep level, a need to think or care about things outside their family, friends and job? Television, aside from its propaganda uses, produces similar effects (interfacing with reality and the community through media rather than concrete, face-to-face experiences).
The bottom line is that "most people" are perfectly capable of making informed and intelligent decisions about important issues, if they have time to think about them, the opportunity to discuss them, and have receieved (formally or just through life experience) an education that includes some real critical thinking skills
OK, rant off.
One final thing - the parent says "Representative to cast votes: congressman." in response to the previous post's suggestion of designated representatives in a direct democracy system. I read that suggestion very differently:
In place of (or in addition to) officials elected to a congress, one could have people you knew and trusted (your very politically knowledgeable friend, for example) act as proxies in a direct democracy system. For example, most of my friends don't really care about copyright law (except to the degree that they think RIAA lawsuits are total BS), but they know I'm interested and reasonably knowledgeable about it. If direct democracy meant people voted on every issue, you could conceive a system where my friends could grant me proxy power on copyright issues, subject to their review of my decisions.
I can see some dangers (e.g., an abusive husband demanding his wife's vote), although these dangers would probably be the same as in any absentee voting system. This seems like a pretty interesting idea.
Submission + - Google Shareholder Proposal to Resist Censorship
buxton2k writes: Slashdot has had plenty of stories about technology companies like Google kowtowing to repressive political regimes such as China's. I'm an (extremely) small shareholder in Google, and I looked at their proxy statement today. Most of the time, shareholders' meetings don't deal with anything other than rubber-stamping the board of directors, but Google's upcoming meeting has a interesting shareholder proposal dealing with free speech and censorship to be voted on at the May 10 meeting.
The proposal cites the UN Declaration of Human Rights and declares that "technology companies in the United States have failed to develop adequate standards by which they can conduct business with authoritarian governments while protecting human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression". If adopted by shareholders, it would call for management to adopt 6 minimum standards including: not storing data that can identify an individual in repressive countries; using all legal means to resist censorship; and documenting and publicizing "all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with." The proposal was submitted by the Comptroller of New York City, which owns large amounts of Google stock in City pension plans.
Is a proposal like this (assuming it ever passed) feasible to implement? Would it actually do anything to open up repressive regimes? Is this a reasonable balance between upholding liberal democracy values and doing business in dictatorships? Would it have any effect on domestic issues such as DMCA takedown orders? Most of all, as a shareholder, what is Google's board of directors' justification for recommending that shareholders vote AGAINST this proposal? If you are a Google shareholder, were you aware of this proposal, and if so, are you going to vote for or against?
The proposal cites the UN Declaration of Human Rights and declares that "technology companies in the United States have failed to develop adequate standards by which they can conduct business with authoritarian governments while protecting human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression". If adopted by shareholders, it would call for management to adopt 6 minimum standards including: not storing data that can identify an individual in repressive countries; using all legal means to resist censorship; and documenting and publicizing "all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with." The proposal was submitted by the Comptroller of New York City, which owns large amounts of Google stock in City pension plans.
Is a proposal like this (assuming it ever passed) feasible to implement? Would it actually do anything to open up repressive regimes? Is this a reasonable balance between upholding liberal democracy values and doing business in dictatorships? Would it have any effect on domestic issues such as DMCA takedown orders? Most of all, as a shareholder, what is Google's board of directors' justification for recommending that shareholders vote AGAINST this proposal? If you are a Google shareholder, were you aware of this proposal, and if so, are you going to vote for or against?
Slashdot Top Deals
Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.
