On 10/08/13 22:44, Benjamin Heath wrote:
Adding to your previous thoughts, it became clear to me some years ago that
the best way to gather information on someone is to find information which
they've volunteered.
The US Army, namely D/arpa and the Navy, invented the Internet and onion
routing.
I can't believe they didn't invent such a clever way to extract
information before MySpace/Facebook did.
Facebook and other social networks have a space to select your religion,
sexual identity, location, school, work, and contact information. Much of
this information can be selected from existing lists. Supplying this
information hands it into the realm of Facebook "apps" with permission to
access that information, too.
But, people have given up this information. They weren't even paid or
coerced. Why so naive?
I think P.T. Barnum said something about that.
People like free stuff. They think they are using a product for free.
They don't realize *they* are the product.
I don't have a Facebook account. I have a G+ account (by way of having a
gmail account for mailing lists) with a picture of my cat, and no
information about myself except links to my website.
But that's just it, isn't it? People are naive. They go to public schools
where they are taught to accept what is popular and reject all else, and
that's where much of it starts. Computers must run Windows. If you want to
be different, buy a Mac. Programs must be big and graphical with plenty of
room for error. Why have it any other way?
So far as I understand it, kids often aren't being taught the course
material. They're being "taught the test". That is, the standardized
evaluation tests for each subject. It inflates test scores to
"acceptable" limits.
The ability to think, critically, isn't being taught at all. You have
kids walking out of school thinking crap like "Intelligent Design" is
plausible, and that the earth really is only 6000 years old. Darwin's
ideas are "just theories", but fail to realize gravity is "just a
theory" too. Stand on a 10th floor balcony, and test out that "just a
theory".
Why would kids do such silly things as read books, when they have
summarized versions online that they can skim over while they're waiting
for their tweet/facebook update to be replied to. After all, it is the
most profound 130 character message ever written.
I have also noticed that the news is saying what is and isn't common sense
now. They use this term as a backhanded directive, as if to say, "Of course
it is so, this is common sense." In fact, common sense is a little more
inquisitive than that, and common sense would actually have it that you
don't trust everything you hear.
"I read it on the Internet, therefore it must be true."
99% of the "news" people digest daily is spoon fed to them by five
megacorps that are more than happy to frame the narrative for you.
People worship celebrities that are only famous because of their
surnames or relatives, and spend their leisure time on the couch
watching (un)reality TV shows.
TV crime shows, like CSI, get DNA results in minutes. They can pinpoint
the bad guy, right down to the floor he's on, within seconds just from
his IP address. Strong encryption is broken within seconds on a laptop
computer. Firewalls are routinely hacked within minutes. Cases are
always solved with conclusive proof.
Ask any prosecutor how her life in the courtroom has changed since
CSI-type shows hit the air. Everyone on the jury is an armchair expert
criminalist, and they get confused when cases aren't cut and dried,
black and white.
The founding fathers of the US understood that an educated public,
active in the political process, is a good thing.
Modern politicians understand that an uneducated, apathetic public is a
better thing.
On topic and as a response to Theo, Twitter is a vehicle of passive
aggression and ad hominem attacks among other things. I blame Twitter for
the direction much of the Internet has taken. It is quick, it is short, and
that's how people are with other people. They are quick, and they are
short. And it seems a pretty weak attempt at disparaging your character.
I suppose twitter has its good uses, like during the Arab Spring, but by
and large it's a time sink to read fluff. I wrote to someone earlier
sharing my one and only tweet from three years ago. (I plagiarized Marco
Peereboom.)
<crap>
*Scott McEachern* @*scott_mceachern*
<https://twitter.com/scott_mceachern> 24 Nov 10
<https://twitter.com/scott_mceachern/status/7477254057631744>
Twitter is the stupidest fucking thing to happen on the Internet.
</crap>
Like I said, you read it on the Internet, so it must be true.
--
Scott McEachern
https://www.blackstaff.ca
"Beware the Four Horsemen of the Information Apocalypse: terrorists, drug dealers,
kidnappers, and child pornographers. Seems like you can scare any public into allowing
the government to do anything with those four." -- Bruce Schneier
