The Future - where are we heading?

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#1
There are plenty of dystopian movies out there, set in the future with a big brother overseeing your every move. In the UK, we have a ton of CCTV cameras lining the streets, shops and offices. Yet despite these intrusions on our privacy, there is much to be hopeful about. Medical breakthroughs, advances in materials, manufacturing and efficiencies, leading to more for less and better health.

How do you see the future in the coming decade and beyond? Where are we heading?
 

The_Doc_Man

Founding Member
#2
I noted with some interest that the EU's privacy policy is being revised to put some SERIOUS teeth into the law in a way that will force some of the big tech companies to take notice. I doubt it would ever happen in the USA, but some sharp teeth in OUR privacy laws would be welcome. I think the struggle to find balance between a "big brother" society and a more private society will be the forefront of our new societal frontier.
 

Bee

Founding Member
#3
Post-Brexit, the UK will not be bound by the EU privacy laws. Or any other EU law for that matter. Or ... I'll stop there, before I give myself an anxiety attack.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#4
Let's face it, the EU will still have their tentacles in the UK because the whole Brexit thing is a fudge. If the EU gets their own way, the EU citizens residing in the UK will have different laws to the UK residents. I am not sure what the current status is on that policy. Two tier legal system. It will be Sharia Law next! (Am I allowed to say that, or is that hate speech?)
 

Bee

Founding Member
#5
The EU citizens living in the UK are all very worried. In many cases there are two choices:

1. Apply for settled status and give up EU rights (including the right to free movement)
2. Leave.

As it is, if I rely solely on my Irish passport, I will not be able to vote in the May elections next year.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#6
I will be voting for the opposite party to the one I support, since my vote has no influence at all.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#8
There is something pleasantly sadistic about voting for the opposition and knowing it won't help them one bit.
 

Bee

Founding Member
#9
And there's something immensely pleasurable in knowing that even with your political convictions, you are voting for the opposition.
 
#12
To be perfectly honest, in the 2016 elections, I voted for Trump because it was the only way to vote AGAINST Clinton and make it stick. I would have preferred any of the 3rd party/lesser party candidates but none of them were viable. So I held my nose and pressed the appropriate buttons.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#13
I knew nothing about US politics until that election. I started watching Fox News for my information. I didn't know what Republican or Democrat was. I liked the persona of Obama and Bill Clinton. I also liked George Bush version 2. I've now become an expert, knowing much more about what goes on over there than what goes on in the UK.

#metoo regarding anti-Clinton, although the difference is I liked Trump since I quite enjoy the "disruptor" status of things. It is a bit like an asteroid hitting the earth at high speed. Things get shaken up.

Personally, I think Clinton should have been jailed for her email scandal and the numerous lies she told to congress, as confirmed by James Comey. He should be jailed too, for perverting the course of justice and taking things into his own hands, over and above the justice department. But they were probably all in it together anyway. I digress.

[Just had an insight. If you have an outlier IQ, does that mean you will perceive the world differently from most and subsequently this chasm will more likely lead you into conflict?]
 
Last edited:
#14
FYI - Fox News (with a tag-line of "fair and balanced") is neither fair nor balanced. They are unabashedly anti-liberal. I.e. not 100% objective. CBS is more liberal. CNN is somewhat liberal, too. Do you know enough now to understand what we mean by "Republican" and "Democrat" or are you still working from a general impression from Fox News?

Personally, I think Clinton should have been jailed for her email scandal
Preaching to the choir there, Jon. For me it is based on CERTAIN knowledge of what should have happened, but Hillary was above all that stuff. Remember, I worked indirectly through contract for the U.S. Government. I had to take yearly refresher courses on the subject of document security, retention, and disposal. MULTIPLE courses. And the people directly employed by the government ALSO were required to do so. Hillary, as high up as she was, was NOT exempt from the requirement.

That e-mail server violated the Federal Records Act by keeping operational records of a U.S. Department (State, in this case) on a non-government server where it was not backed up according to standards. Then, e-mails were DELETED from it and those e-mails were not backed up first. That is a SEPARATE violation of the Federal Records Act. Particularly without a good backup, that amounts to Unlawful Destruction of Federal Records - which is a low-grade felony. By keeping the mail on a non-government server, she evaded the Freedom of Information Act, which would allow people to request copies on any information available on a given topic.

But then, the REAL kicker... the server was not secured according to U.S. Government standards. And my JOB with the government was as a systems administrator, so I intimately know those standards. The investigation found Sensitive (marked as "FOUO"), Classified (C), Secret (S), Top Secret (TS), and Top Secret/Compartmented (TS/C) e-mails on the server, many of them MARKED AS SUCH, and more items that were not marked but should have been according to the standards for such marking. Not less than 22 TS/C e-mails were identified. That server should have been confiscated immediately on discovery of its existence. Each e-mail in the TS/C category would have represented one count of the highest-category of violation. I don't know how many items were found of lesser classification than TS/C, but it was in the hundreds. The LOWEST violation would have been punishable by fine and a short federal imprisonment, but the highest level was something like $25K or $50K fine and 5 years - per count.

SO many heads should roll because of this one that I can only conclude that she and Bill are spending all of their political capital to keep this from going to trial. At least she got spanked in the election badly enough that she went into a form of denial - and ended up throwing everyone under the bus because there is no way that SHE was at fault for that loss. :rolleyes:
 

Insane_AI

Founding Member
#15
I'm not certain of where we're headed but if we keep going the way we are, it will be bloody. With the politically correct trying to run things and tolerance for anything but what you tolerate is leading to serious issues like pipe bombs in the mail, religious services being shot up, and other extreme reactions from the disenfranchised will become more common.

we need to practice listening to those we can't agree with then agree to live and let live so long as nobody is being harmed as a result. This means we will have to go back to the original idea behind the USA, different areas for people who want to live differently.
 
#17
Live and let live? But the religious mandates of Islam don't allow that. They are mandated to absorb and convert (through violence if necessary) all who do not accept the word of Allah. There IS no "live and let live." Look up "Winston Churchill quote on Islam"

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-on-islam/ - the quote

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-on-islam/ - Snopes confirms the quote, explaining that it was removed from a condensed version of the book in which it originally appeared

- YouTube presentation of the quote
 
Top