A lot of heavy hitters on Google+ say
Change is Good
http://thomashawk.com/2013/05/change-is-good.html
I've always approached change from the perspective of "In change lies opportunity", look for the positive potential and head for that. The topic of change came up here in the context of Google Glass. I'm all for it. I can envision infinite applications… some day soon surgeons will be able to operate across long distances. In the short run… a voice-activated point of view camera? I could definitely use that.
But in the big picture and recent context of rapid erosion of Constitutionally-protected rights, would I like to see due diligence on valid concerns like privacy, given the flood of developments like this one?
Justice Department Secretly Obtains AP Phone Records
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly-obtains-ap-phone-records
As we're entering a new era of wearable networked devices, a little calm and reasoned discussion on such topics wouldn't hurt. Proposing or engaging in such discussions doesn't represent a complaint about, or fear of, change at all.
28c3: The coming war on general computation
http://youtu.be/HUEvRyemKSg
_Cory Doctorow: The coming war on general computation
The copyright war was just the beginning_
The last 20 years of Internet policy have been dominated by the copyright war, but the war turns out only to have been a skirmish. The coming century will be dominated by war against the general purpose computer, and the stakes are the freedom, fortune and privacy of the entire human race.
The problem is twofold: first, there is no known general-purpose computer that can execute all the programs we can think of except the naughty ones; second, general-purpose computers have replaced every other device in our world. There are no airplanes, only computers that fly. There are no cars, only computers we sit in. There are no hearing aids, only computers we put in our ears. There are no 3D printers, only computers that drive peripherals. There are no radios, only computers with fast ADCs and DACs and phased-array antennas. Consequently anything you do to "secure" anything with a computer in it ends up undermining the capabilities and security of every other corner of modern human society.
And general purpose computers can cause harm — whether it's printing out AR15 components, causing mid-air collisions, or snarling traffic. So the number of parties with legitimate grievances against computers are going to continue to multiply…
Just as the members of our Constitutional Convention spent ample time debating and defining principles to support such as freedom, security and privacy, and they were meticulous to develop a legal framework in the U.S. Constitution to protect those rights, as we sit poised on the dawn of a promising new technological era, we owe it to our children to ensure that technology which could, in the wrong hands, severely undermine those rights, is designed so that it will not and cannot be misused.
I can think of no company better suited than Google to design wearable networked technology with such considerations in mind.
Google+: View post on Google+
This was one of those "stop the car" moments. Snowy Telescope Peak had nice side…
The Geminids are the most active meteor shower of the year, and in recent years…
I was asked this question earlier today, and the more I thought of it, the…
So called "super bloom" years make it easy to find wildflowers in Death Valley, but…
We've reached a major milestone on our workshop program: we celebrated completing ten years of…
Spring 2022 is shaping up to be a very busy year in Death Valley, like…
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
Change is inherently only one thing. CHANGE.
I agree +Rafael Eduardo Wefers Verástegui. So why take the tactic of moving the discussion on a topic to an abstract level like "change"?
+Craig Lewis made an interesting observation in a comment on a reshare of a post on this topic:
"Change on its own is a meaningless concept. For change to have meaning it requires a focus and a direction born of experience, understanding and inspiration. Change for the sake of change is often counterproductive, or even dangerous.
The whole debate is in danger of becoming a mob squabble disguised as philosophy, clouded by bored mud slingers on the periphery."
+Jeff Sullivan I see "change" as a concept like the biologists see evolution. Evolution happens and change happens. Sometimes the diminute changes leed to success, sometime they don't. Change isn't good or bad at all, change just happens. Change can't be stopped, because the more you try to stop a specific "changing" the more you will encounter opposite forces. So we can accept the change (normalle the "youth" embraces change" or we can say no and ignore the change (conservative and older people tend to do this). But change still happens, even if we grow old and prefer not to adapt.
Actually change can b both good and bad depending on the circumstances involved....pple actually want to change for the best...but others console themselves that they change for the best but in actual sense they are getting worse...in conclusion change defines us....
Change is life.
Anyone who says change is good . . .
is selling something.
Change is GOOD.
Change is the only constant in life....whether it be good or bad is purely based on judgements we make....based on our own reality.