>Sorry for my absence lately. I’m without the internet temporarily.
So to bide the time until I’m back on the site please feel free to list any questions you want to discuss here.
I’ll start it off: if 2011 is the real start of the tens decade then what is your opinion about what will be the key moments and themes of the Noughties that historians point too in fifty to a hundred years?
>Analyse the great leaders of history and you’ll learn about the positive traits that enabled them to find success, whether it be wit, oratory skills, strength, or any number of different abilities. Yet in all the world many people have these skills. So is it more about being in the right place at the right time? Or would the right person always find their way to the top irrelevant of what structures they’re pitted up against?
>Can we even tell? Is futurology a bogus subject? What do you think?
>There seems to be a split between those who believe that the prime purpose of education is to prepare students for employment and those who believe it’s supposed to prepare students for life. What do you think?
>These were the words spoken by Malcom X in 1964. The whole quote was:
“America is just as much a colonial power as England ever was. America is just as much a colonial power as France ever was. In fact America is more so a colonial power than they, because she’s a hypocritical colonial power. What do you call second class citizenship? Why, that’s colonisation. Second class citizenship is nothing but twentieth century slavery.”
Was he right to say such things in 1964? Would he be right today?
>Western democracies are liberal democracies. We believe in upholding basic human rights, and ensuring the freedom of the individual insofar as they doesn’t enfringe upon the freedoms of others. But would freeing people like Liu Xiaobo enfringe upon the liberties of others? Do we have a right to say our way is undeniably better, and that there are no disadvantages with ordering his release? Or is China right to suspect that violence and unrest might walk hand in hand with greater freedom to protest? After all China learnt a lesson from Gorbachev; and much of the reason why they keep such a tight reign on the country is because of the perceived lessons from that period of Soviet history.
>
If you read the techie news then you would have seen recently that there is a new hacker tool doing the rounds. It’s called Firesheep and it intercepts communications over public wireless networks, like the free wifi in cafes etc, to obtain cookies from sites you’ve visited such as email and facebook.
With a copy of this cookie it can then log back into the password protected site you have just visited.
The inventor is a typical computer guy who says he released it to expose the vulnerability of current websites, i.e. he had an altruistic motive for causing harm, in that the short term pain will lead to longer term gain and improvements.
No more than a few days later a piece of software that protects you from Firesheep, called Blacksheep, comes out as a fix.
Now here is the issue I want to discuss. It is in my mind that both pieces of software are made by the same guy. And if they are not, then they could easily have been.
Now this man has basically invented a problem to which he also has the solution. In effect his illegal act has created a market for his legal solution. Yet of course he won’t be prosecuted.
Now had he just released the solution then it would have gone un-noticed, but by causing some hysteria by releasing malicious code, he has gained a lot of free publicity, and then in a suspiciously timely manner, appeared with a solution.
And apparently there is no law against this.
So what would prevent other businesses taking the same approach ?
Can a biologist discover an anti-dote to a disease that doesn’t exist, and then release the disease enmasse in order to sell his anti-dote ?
Can a glazier help fuel french protest rallies in order to swell business the next day ?
I’m serious that the computer guy was not and will not be prosecuted, so with some discretion why can we not all play this game ?
obviously you can not set fires to peoples houses in order to sell fire insurance, but this is exactly what it seems like the computer guy has done.
Its not so much that he hasn’t been prosecuted, its more the idea that you can invent a problem. As the problem will be brand new, there may not be any laws specifically relating to this kind of detrimental invention. Then if you have the solution waiting straight after, you have effectively held the world to ransom and are a rich man.
>This is a quote from Nietzche. It’s perhaps quite odd to come from someone that many people would have labelled mad himself. Indeed the very next thing he wrote was “the thought of suicide is a great consolation: by means of it one gets succesfully through many a bad night”, which at the very least suggests mental illness, and also a different way of thinking.
But was Nietzche right? Is this why we frequently get so angry with decisions taken at the group level, but can accept the freedom of individuals to act as they will? Is there anything to what Nietzche said at all?
>This is just a bit of fun, as a reward for answering all the tough questions. Answer as many as the following questions as possible:
The first person to find all the answers wins absolutely nothing … except pride. Good luck!
P.S. Please try not to use the internet to find answers the first time round.
Battison's Blog 