The key difference is they traded privacy for personal trust and rapport. When you live in the same foxhole with your entire family and are always interacting with the same small community, trust is built up over time. You knew everybody in a personal way, not just as an abstract notion of a person on the other side of the world.
The way we're heading, we'll have neither personal trust nor privacy. It's not JUST the lack of privacy that's a problem, it's the fact that any stranger can know everything there is to know about you. In a small community, everybody has to have good working relationships with everybody else or the community dies. On the internet, not everybody has your best interests in mind.
There's also the issue that information is easily spread "virally" online. The information that is actively spread though tends to be stuff that is outrageous or scandalous (often taken out of context) or whatever rather than the positive but boring stuff.
Star wars kid could probably cure cancer, but he'd still be "the star wars kid" to most people.
I think the issue is that if we know only one thing about you, that one thing is your label.
I see a policeman on TV, he's a 'cop'. Sure he may be a father, avid sci-fi junkie, and so on, but all I see is one dimension.
If Star Wars Kid cured cancer, we wouldn't forget about his light saber antics but we'd add that to our impression of him----now he's a nobel winning scientist, with an impressive intellect, who has saved potentially billions of lives..... oh and in his youth he used to geek out on Youtube.
True, something of that magnitude would probably change expectations. But what if you are just a good software developer or something like that?
The policeman example is interesting, what happens in a society where a policeman is trying to be taken seriously and discourage you from some activity you are doing but your glasses automatically recognise his face and say "hey, I see you are being harassed by the police, these naked pictures leaked by his ex-wife might be of use to you".
A more useful feature would be for the device to automatically stream video to an off-site location whenever it recognizes a policeman, badge, or vehicle.
I've been doing the same and the lag isn't the issue. The real problem is high CPU usage. I can only use the usb monitor for looking at text, anything more (like opening a webpage or watching a video in youtube) and the computer slows to a crawl (I'm using the first unibody macbook pro, pre-thunderbolt).
From a legal standpoint, there absolutely is a need to know your full name and birth date. It's called the FTC Coppa rule, where it's illegal to collect and disclosing personal information of children under age 13 without their parents’ prior consent. Acclaim got dinged by that last year and as a result, some games no longer allow underage players at all.
I'm, obviously, not a lawyer, but how could this possibly be a game developer's problem? you have to be 13 to have a google+ account. If they were under 13, google wouldn't vouch for them.
Yet flash games get along just fine despite that law. Worse, G+ also seems to broadcast which games you play. I use Google+ for its privacy features. I too decided not to touch any of the games due to their lack of privacy guards.
Uh, if you don't collect any personal information, COPPA isn't an issue. So if you don't ask for name and birthdate, you have no need to ask for their birthdate. To my knowledge, playing a game requires no personal information.
Knowing if someone is below or above 13 is different than knowing your exact birth date. G+ should simply confirm to that game that you are over 13 rather that give your exact details
How exactly does someone check that someone is above or below a certain age online?
The utter absurdity of such checks boggles my mind.
Also noticed them when simply accessing sites which just contain information about a game, seriously, wtf? Does anyone visiting such a site ever bother to enter their actual age/birth-date?
Sounds like the result of some extremely dumb law and management not having the guts to do the right thing and ignore it.
How exactly does someone check that someone is above or below a certain age online?
If you don't want to allow < 13, you just need to make sure you ask and don't accept people who reply with < 13. It then becomes the kid's legal guardian responsibility to make sure the child doesn't use the service.
If you do want to accept it, you need to use IRL methods (phone call, credit card, etc).
So by acknowledging the mastery, we have changed the practice.
by acknowledging the mastery, we have changed the experience for the end user, but not the practice of creating the sushi. People may reserve a stool a year in advance, but for him it's the same - people come to eat, he makes sushi.
I've had similar problems with people who think everything and anything is possible in just 4 weeks. People with positive attitudes who over-commit a whole team is bad enough, but when I try to say 'what you're talking about isn't possible, let's scale back the requirements' I'm told I'm a pessimistic person. The most frustrating part of the experience in when you prove time and time again, that the goals they are so optimistic about are more complex than they think, they do not alter their outlook on future goals! It's as if their only comfort is in predicting success and then passively ensuring failure and burnout.
Of course when hard time constraints are involved, things actually become impossible. Even the universe has a fixed limit how far you can go in an amount of time.
Nobody (besides you) is saying that "scaling back requirements" is pessimistic. Where is that coming from?
> It's as if their only comfort is in predicting success and then passively ensuring failure and burnout.
How is predicting a success and then failing a comfort? Mine was: predicting a failure and then failing, which would make the prediction a comfort because it was correct. Yours, as a whole, is not comforting, because it was incorrect.
> The most frustrating part of the experience in when you prove time and time again, that the goals they are so optimistic about are more complex than they think, they do not alter their outlook on future goals!
That's not exactly a bad thing, considering the alternative. I would so much rather someone never lose optimism than pessimism, even if they are wrong every time. With optimism, you're dumb enough to try again. With pessimism, you're dumb enough to never try.
The government isn't discerning between "not for profit" piracy and "for profit" piracy. In fact, they're not even focused on "piracy" at all. If this is allowed to stand without any kind of recourse or punishment, there would then be a precedent that allowed the government to shut down any company at any time for any reason without the due process of law anywhere in the world. It's naive to think that wouldn't get abused.
The first startup I worked for called a company meeting and pretty much said everybody was laid off except those who were told beforehand that they weren't. The kicker is, I was a contractor (at that point) and wasn't allowed in the company meetings. I came in the following monday and worked half a day in an empty office before one of the HR people asked me what I was doing.
The way we're heading, we'll have neither personal trust nor privacy. It's not JUST the lack of privacy that's a problem, it's the fact that any stranger can know everything there is to know about you. In a small community, everybody has to have good working relationships with everybody else or the community dies. On the internet, not everybody has your best interests in mind.