HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Fumesucker » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Mar 29, 2008, 09:11 PM
Number of posts: 45,851

Journal Archives

Sousveillance: Ubiquitous privately owned video recording throughout society

I posted this in a thread the other day and some DUers said they appreciated the information so I thought perhaps I should share it more widely.

Surveillance benefits the powerful and organized interests in a society, sousveillance somewhat changes the equation, equalizing in a way but also with its own problems.

Sousveillance is here already and watching the news stories being posted on DU and other places it's obviously starting to change society for the better in some ways and for the worse in other ways. It's not going to go away and it's going to get a lot more prevalent.

It's a good word I think that encompasses an entire concept in three syllables, two of which are already familiar together.


Sousveillance (/suːˈveɪləns/ soo-VAY-ləns) is the recording of an activity by a participant in the activity typically by way of small wearable or portable personal technologies.[12] The term "sousveillance", coined by Steve Mann,[13] stems from the contrasting French words sur, meaning "above", and sous, meaning "below", i.e. "surveillance" denotes the "eye-in-the-sky" watching from above, whereas "sousveillance" denotes bringing the camera or other means of observation down to human level, either physically (mounting cameras on people rather than on buildings), or hierarchically (ordinary people doing the watching, rather than higher authorities or architectures doing the watching)

I'm VERY LIBERAL... I listen to NPR!!

That makes me very liberal because Republicans and conservatives hate NPR.

* not intended as a factual statement

Writing is hard, writing what you mean without any possibility of misinterpretation is even harder

I just though I'd put this out there, an OP currently on the first page is complaining about the wording of a sign held by a homeless person on the side of the road and how it was offensive to the OP.

I write quite a bit and still screw up fairly regularly, imply things I didn't mean to say, have people take a completely different meaning from my words than what I intended to say by being vague. Even get things completely wrong through a brain fart, happened to me in a post today as a matter of fact.

I'd like it if we could give each other the benefit of the doubt when wordings aren't perfect, a lot of us dash posts off and don't really consider every word with the exquisite care necessary in order to be completely unambiguous. I'm certainly guilty also of jumping on language that's not precise and taking the worst possible interpretation. I do try not to be a complete ass about things but like everyone else I'm far from perfect, I have my blind spots and my prejudices.

Most of us on DU want similar things I believe but we differ wildly on strategy and tactics to get there and we also vary a great deal in our ability to express ourselves in exactly the manner we intend.

Give the other person the benefit of the doubt until you are sure of what they mean, it's ridiculously easy to misinterpret the words of others and few of us are really professional writers and not very many of us have editors for our DU posts to catch our screwups and brain farts.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Godhood..

An implication and slight rephrasing of Clarke's third law, an implication Asimov wrote into his story "The Last Question".

Technology can confer vast powers, today we can talk to, see or even kill people on the other side of the world without ever setting foot out of our own country. We would be like gods to someone transported straight from the middle ages.

If an advanced civilization were to show up here at Earth how would we be able to determine that the manifestation was not a god or gods, assuming the aliens were trying to get us to believe they were a god or gods with technological tricks far beyond our own understanding?

Edited to correct a brain fart on my part..

Poll: 57% Of GOPers Support Making Christianity The National Religion

If you live in a conservative Christian part of America these are your neighbors and even your friends.


A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday.

The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans "support establishing Christianity as the national religion" while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure.

It almost goes without saying that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution prohibits establishing of a national religion.

The poll was conducted among 316 Republicans from Feb. 20-22. The margin of error was plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

Belling the cat

My last OP got me looking at my Discussionist Journal and got me thinking, how many of you have belled the cat, taking on conservatives/Republicans on neutral or even their own turf?

I was doing it quite a bit a decade ago and got bored with it, if I didn't get kicked off I could get to the point I could say almost anything and not get any replies except maybe other liberals.

When Discussionist launched I went over there and tried out my old conservative taunting chops for a while until I got bored again.


The Democratic party *should* marginalize and ignore liberals

Let's face it, liberals are going to vote Democratic because the Republicans are so horrible, liberals are a totally owned vote by the Democratic party.

To the Democratic party every conservative vote they can pull away from the Republicans is as good as two liberal votes, they would be fools not to pander to disaffected Republican voters and ignore liberals because paying attention to liberals means driving away those double plus valuable conservative votes. Nobody likes someone who is right about things and points out that they are right, it's a huge turnoff. The amiable fool is far easier to get along with than the prickly egghead who is always talking about how they got so many things right, look at how popular Ronald Reagan is and was.

So get with the program fellow liberals, if you want the Democrats to win big then shut the hell up about all this pinko lefty crud, all you are doing is helping the Republicans and hurting the Democrats.

Ten applicants for one job, when you hire one applicant does that mean the rest are being punished?

This is in response to the claim that not wanting Hillary to be the Democratic nominee because of her vote for the IWR is "punishing" her.

I don't see it that way but clearly some folks disagree.

What do you think, is the employer "punishing" the other nine applicants if they don't get the job?

Leonard Susskind - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?

If they could only see us now dept: Goldwater, McGovern on divisive politics (1988)

I watched this joint interview live on the News Hour back in the day and it has stuck with me ever since while politics has become ever meaner and more divisive.

McGovern: The American people like liberal policies and programs.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »