One possile future...

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

.. as seen by the creator of this humorous video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t3TAOYXT840

[youtube=425,350]t3TAOYXT840[/youtube]

Or is it humorous, really?

Do we really want our daily walkabout bombarded with web-based input like this?   Imagine trying to drive.... when an emergency message suddenly blocks our view....!

[Roland Deschain]

This would not be the most practical of technology if it were so intrusive. It needs to be seamlessly added, and not appearing as it does in the video. The end part is scary though, where his lifelog is requested by the police, and he has no legal right to deny access. Fascism, much?

[Griffin NoName]

The end part is scary though, where his lifelog is requested by the police, and he has no legal right to deny access.

Actually the DWP and local councils pretty much have these powers already 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Indeed they do Griff--- here in Oklahomer, the most Socialist of states, we have this lovely "implied consent" law on the books-- a law which denies your right to unlawful search & seizure... seriously.

Any officer who's jurisdiction includes motorized vehicles automatically has the right to stop for any reason (or no reason) and demand to be allowed to paw through the contents of said motorized vehicle....

...!!!

A whole new meaning to the "Kicking in your door" phrase from Pink Floyd's  The Wall

[Opsa]

I saw a news item on these Google glasses, and all I could think was: Isn't it enough that we carry little computers around with us everywhere without putting them on our faces?

I mean seriously, it makes me think of those face-huggers from the movie Alien. Or maybe the thought-smashers from the Kurt Vonnegut story Welcome to the Monkey House.

I love my computer, but it's also nice to give it a rest from time to time.

[Roland Deschain]

Any law is capable of being subverted, most of all ones like these. Look at what's been done with the Patriot Act, and the Bush administration categorically promised it would only be used for its original purpose (as if it wasn't just for terrorists...).

The issue is that when people abuse laws, especially if they're law enforcement, they think they're doing the right thing to detect criminals, when in fact they are not. Yes, they can catch criminals this way, and they do, but i'd rather criminals go free than have my right to privacy invaded. The police must have reasonable cause at the minimum before they should be allowed to search you, and any search they conduct of your property must be authorised by a judge or magistrate by way of search warrant. The only exception to the last should be your vehicle, but only if you are in it, and only if there is reasonable cause.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Y'all:  you do realize I was being extremely sarcastic when I called Oklahomer "socialized", right?   

Opsa:  I'm with you 100%, here-- I like my computers as gadgets I can put away, shut off or otherwise dismiss.    Having them built-in to glasses is not my idea of a nice walk.

Now, I could see these infernal things in an Art Museum or a Natural History Emporium-- it'd be cool if they were locale-sensitive, and offered up Interesting Facts about what I was looking at...

... and another use for these:   when watching Politicians on TV?   It'd be really cool to see running statistics of how many times this politician has lied, or failed to keep his campaign promise scrolling across the bottom, every time he spoke... !!!   

In fact?  If I could, I would make that a law-- any time a politician was speaking in public, there was a streamer along the bottom outlining his public voting record, and contrasting it with his public speaking-- and I'd also include any and all arrest and convictions too.   The Public Has A Right To Know... right?

[pieces o nine]

^ Fair *and* Balanced, yeah?     

[Griffin NoName]

... and another use for these:   when watching Politicians on TV?   It'd be really cool to see running statistics of how many times this politician has lied, or failed to keep his campaign promise scrolling across the bottom, every time he spoke... !!!   

In fact?  If I could, I would make that a law-- any time a politician was speaking in public, there was a streamer along the bottom outlining his public voting record, and contrasting it with his public speaking-- and I'd also include any and all arrest and convictions too.   The Public Has A Right To Know... right?

I'd like a large white cloud to appear over the potlician's head on TV with LIAR written inside it, every time they lie.

[Aggie]

In fact?  If I could, I would make that a law-- any time a politician was speaking in public, there was a streamer along the bottom outlining his public voting record, and contrasting it with his public speaking-- and I'd also include any and all arrest and convictions too.   The Public Has A Right To Know... right?

Hey, to go back in time and technology, why not put out trading cards with stats, like for sports figures?   An online version wouldn't be difficult.

[Swatopluk]

Unfortunately the process would be captured in no time. Soon statements from some politicians that are 98% true would be labelled 'pants on fire' while their opponent's statements that are 98% false would receive a 'mostly true'. Voting records on Omnibus bills would be presented as votes for just certain parts of those ('he voted to raise taxes 27 times' vs. 'he voted for any pro-life amendement that ever was'). And should the arbiter come too close to neutral there would be a firestorm of 'L-word bias'.
Half the public will believe that they are all lying bastards while the other half believes that those on the other side of the aisle are (well, that is what we have now).

[Sibling DavidH]

Just assume as a minimum that all politicians are lying whenever their lips move.

[Swatopluk]

That's what they want you to think

Seriously, it has become an actual theory that the GOP strategists deliberately try to create the image of politics as a dirty business where everyone lies their heads off (of course with the exception of the one candidate running for office where You are). They cannot hide their own bastardiness* from enough people any longer to win in a fair contest. Except for the willfully blind they are seen as what they are. Their only hope is to make their opponents to looks as bad and to create disgust of the political process in general. Many citizens are fed up with the-lesser-of-two-evils and don't bother to vote at all. That plays right into the hands of the bigger crooks because they can rely on the deluded 'base' to consistently vote for them. If enough people stay at home disgusted, they win by default. And the vote of those that smell the rot can be suppressed. Of course it helps that there are lots of crooks on the Dem side too, so painting All of them with the same brush has a certain ring of truth(iness).
It's a bad sign when one has to look with a magnifying glass for any non-negative ads.

*my apology to all bastards in the biological sense. There is nothing inherently wrong about you

[Roland Deschain]

Hey, to go back in time and technology, why not put out trading cards with stats, like for sports figures?   An online version wouldn't be difficult.

I'd buy that for a dollar. There are so many trading card games out there, all based on either fantasy characters or things like cars, that one based on current politicians would be quite the thing. I can imagine the playgrounds in schools, hundreds of children wanting to swap their excess Dick Cheney cards, as they always lose when it comes to their opponent comparing honesty and lack of corruption.

This is the issue with politics and political parties. As with unregulated (or at least unfettered) commerce, in the end you get a very small number of large companies pretty much running the whole market, and you end up with monopolies or oligopolies running the show. This gives you no choice at all, as with the illusion of only really having two candidates to choose from in elections. If people would unlearn what they have learned (eg - What's the point in voting for X candidate, as they'll never win), then politics would be a very changed field. Didn't the US founding fathers say something on political parties being bad? They're not just bad; they kill the democratic process.

[Opsa]

We're off the topic of Googlespecs here, but I agree with Roland. The party system in the US (if not other places) has to end. It has totally crippled us. The people have no voice and the politicians make no progress.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

...  The people have no voice and the politicians make no progress.

Exactly as Umbrella Corp* intended...




____________

* in a reference to the villian in both a video game and a movie franchise....

[Aggie]

I have been making a conscious effort to keep my nose out of provincial politics, because it angers me so much I'm likely to feel obligated to run as an independent if I pay attention to it... 

But seriously, the only way out of a two-party system is to start electing independents.  Now, the chief complaint against independents is that they can't get anything done, as their voice is too small.  However, if a vote is close between two evenly-matched opposing parties? Independents have all the power, and a wily independent can probably make some deals in favour of their constituents in exchange for supporting a particular vote - even while voting how they think is best.

The ideal situation would be to have an Association of Independent Representatives  that takes no stance on politics but imposes ethical standards on its members; act like a slimeball or get caught in the pocket of one of the major parties and you lose the stamp of approval.

With social media and other modern communication technologies, an intelligent, articulate independent representative could keep her/his constituents informed in a way the parties will never do - you know, things like actually reading and explaining the contents of various new bills, explaining why they wish to vote a certain way on a particular bill (beyond the almost-irrelevant sound-bite politics one usually gets fed) and perhaps even be enough of a real human to be able to draw a distinction between their personal beliefs and the act of representing the wishes of the people (i.e. explaining that even though I personally would vote for X, I will vote for Y because that's better for y'all according to what you've told me).

However, in today's climate of multimillion-dollar shit-slinging campaigns? Good luck getting an independent elected in the first place.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I like the sentiment, Aggie.

Unfortunately, history teaches us the lesson:  anytime an independent party starts getting traction?

One or both of the entrenched Machine finally wake up, and start spewing their usual empty promises that match whatever issue was giving the independents traction.

Remember Ross Peroit, and his "independent" party?

Remember McCain's rhetoric about the same time?   

One thing Peroit's party had traction on, was campaign finance reform.  Remember the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill of a few years later?   The one that never went anywhere?  (long after Peroit's party faded into obscurity.... naturally....)

One example out of many where the Machine pretends to Pay Attention to a Real Issue Of The Day--

--- and why not?  Lip Service is free after all...

[Swatopluk]

--- and why not?  Lip Service is free after all...

Not anymore. Many have been punished on the Right for the heresy of paying lip service to reality for the base does not realize that it was only lip service in the first place.

[Roland Deschain]

Exactly as Umbrella Corp* intended...

It's more a case of, "Do I want the T-Virus or the G-Virus?" (yes, i'm an old school RE fan). Two parties is pants. The problem is, as voiced above by Aggie and Bob, the main parties in any country (it does seem as if there are only two choices in most countries) love the status quo. They both get their piece of apple pie, and alternate between themselves, further supporting themselves. I hate it, I really do.

I like the idea of a loose alliance of independent politicians who stand for what they truly believe in, attempting to force out corruption, but only as long as it doesn't turn into another party. As an aside, how do the really corrupt politicians taking what are essentially bribes (aka campaign contributions) from companies survive? Why do they never seem to be voted out of their office? Are people really this thick? <---rhetorical question there

I really wish politicians would say what they really mean, instead of tying people up in trivialities all the time. Ignore the rumour that candidate X is having an affair with 20 men/women/non-gender specific people, as that's really the least of your worries. Focus on what their policies are, and ensure that when they're in power, they fulfil their campaign promises. The issue comes when a large percentage of the people actually agree with their candidate when she/he says that "X is morally wrong according to [insert biblical passage here]", or something similar. This gets my goat too.

/further thread topic deviation.

[Griffin NoName]

...continuing

I just completed my voting slips for London Assembly and Mayor of London. It doesn't offer much in the way of good things to vote FOR, my votes essentially go to prevent the worst. The vote for Mayor comes down to utter silliness like which sorts of buses we want :

[Roland Deschain]

...continuing

It's sad that in a city the size of London, there are only two candidates thought of as viable for mayor. Just once, i'd love to see what an independent or Green Party candidate would do.

Does anyone else see the irony in a Uruguayan ex-national being the BNP candidate?

[Griffin NoName]

Does anyone else see the irony in a Uruguayan ex-national being the BNP candidate?

Re. only two candidates..... I'm not sure if it's because they are the two main parties, or because they are both so extra noticeable........... I wonder if we had one of the less loud candidates win, would they get as much coverage of their activites as Mayor as Borak does?

[Roland Deschain]

I don't know, but i'd love just once to find out. The BNP get more coverage than the independent candidates, and it's pretty bad, although they did get the least number of votes, so that's something at least. I live in a district which has had the Tories consistently win every MP and local election seat for time immemorial. I'm pretty tired of seeing my area in blue.

Talking of local elections, I had one of the tory councillor hopefuls come to my door. I had a nice chat with him about politics and the political structure in the UK, US, and Europe, and he told me a funny anecdote (He was at a party a few weeks ago, and met Cameron. He looked at him and said jokingly, "Who are you?" It did not go down well, apparently, Cameron looking like an offended Jack Russell. ). When I got to the polls, there were 2 Labour candidates to vote for and 3 Conservative. Talk about the lesser of two evils! And yes. I did tell him I wouldn't vote for him. :evilgrin:

[Griffin NoName]

.........He was at a party a few weeks ago, and met Cameron. He looked at him and said jokingly, "Who are you?" It did not go down well, apparently, Cameron looking like an offended Jack Russell. ).

How silly of Cameron. The clever thing would have been to smile.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Actually it's very telling, regardless of the reason not to recognize him (a joke, or honest ignorance) getting angry proves that his ego is too important for him to manage the situation. That's the kind of reaction I would expect from a Newt Gingrich for instance.

[Griffin NoName]

It's almost inconceivable that the guy didn't recognise Cameron (unfortunately). It was almost 100% assured to be a joke. It's also almost inconceivable that Cameron took it seriously. However, I have long thought he is only in the job to massage his ego. It's certainly how he comes across.