On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 09:40:46PM -0400, der Mouse wrote: > > For example: there isn't the slightest reason for any security > > conference to happen, per se. There's no need to heat/cool a meeting > > place, no need to expend jet fuel/gasoline/diesel transporting people > > to it, etc. It's completely possible to do the entire thing > > virtually -- and while that also uses some energy, of course, it's > > far less. > > Yes, but the benefits are also substantially less. You lose all the > meetings at meals, yakking with randoms met in the hallway, etc, which > in my experience usually rival and often surpass in value the overt > business of the conference.
Yes, I know. But we could -- if we had the will -- replace that. We've invented plenty of technology (including this here intarwebs) and worked out plenty of social interactions which use it. This is just one more. (e.g.: there was a time when having a conversation with someone required being in proximity. Now that we have this "telephone" thingy, we can do it remotely.) But we just don't want to: we're creatures of habit and we like our habits, and we probably won't change them until we're compelled to. Which is why even organizations *which would not exist* were it not for the Internet will steadfastly refuse to actually use the Internet to full advantage. ---Rsk _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
