Musk calls out Ret. nazi Sorros
- Thread starter TurboTrout
- Start date
Every wrestling match has heroes and villains. ITs theatre. Musk is about as libertarian as Bernie Sanders is my guess.
when has comrade sanders had a original idea, or made a product anyone wanted?
Seems inevitable that the things that are invented for luxury or to solve problems always become necessity. Time was, you had to physically show up at a prospective employer's place of business and hand-fill an application and walk it into the office to drop it off if you wanted a job. You needed a copy of the yellow/white pages to locate addresses or contact info for anything...
And you had to wait till you got home to check your answering machine to find out who called while you were out.
Stuff that was once luxurious has now become more than commonplace: it's damn near a requirement to interact with society in a meaningful way. And most of the tech in the last 10-15 years is built with provisions for monitoring those who use it (and even those who don't use it, but are in proximity to those who do).
But the initial marketing for a given piece of morally questionable tech is always "safety" or "medical treatment" or some other heart-strings-kind-of-a-thing.
Any tech that allows remote monitoring should be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism and caution (IMO), as should the motive of those who promote/finance its development.
x
as long as the end user can control the tx/rx factor of it, Im all for it on many fronts.
as long as the end user can control the tx/rx factor of it, Im all for it on many fronts.
I don't disagree. However, tech now a days is like voodoo magic to folks over a certain age, and even those who understand it have to deal with proprietary features that the basic functions rely on in order for the device to work.
As I understand it, for example, even when your cell phone is off, and the battery is "dead" it is still broadcasting it's location. My understanding is that this is one of the reasons why phones are now built such that batteries are not user-replaceable (want to prevent folks from being able to "hide").
Anything with remote monitoring gives those who control the monitors the ability to access (or, at the minimum, view) the user's "stuff." If the tech did not rely on a signal, I'd be far less skeptical that it's purpose was altruistic (and even then, I'd be weary of a hidden, or undisclosed monitoring feature... as if we haven't seen that before).
One way to look at is to ask: "what is the worst case scenario?" (and "worst case" is NOT an indicator of likelihood). The worst case I can imagine with such a technology is people having the physical control over their bodies overridden by a remote controller (if you believe in predictive programming, check out the movie "Upgrade" for a "best case scenario" example). Another example would be that the device literally interfaces with body parts which, if damaged, can lead to instant death or permanent disability (folks could be "held hostage" by those with access to the remote control system without being physically confined). Then again, they read, thoroughly understood, and signed the user agreement before having it installed, right?
So the question is do I trust people who have the money, worldly influence, and resources to bring about such tech? And there is that little proverb about power corrupting... and then something else about absolute power...
I would imagine if you had a steel or lead lined box to put your device in, it would be "hidden" if signals could not get in or out. Think faraday cage.
Similar threads
