Slashdot Mirror
Search
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
The point is not that the problems and solutions are complex (though they are); the point is that the responses of individals can neither be predicted nor shaped by ideology. Individuals make decisions. The simple model that you build (based on your ideology) about how and why those individulas make those independent decisions is flawed and will always be flawed.
Brin's analysis is very rich on this point. Practical men craft practical answers to problems without being blinded by ideological blinders. Marshall did that. He labored within the ideological whirlwinds that surrounded him, yet he was able to hold off those forces and championed a practical plan that worked.
His point about ending 4000 years of treating the vanquished badly was one I hadn't thought about much. But in retrospect it is fascinating. Do US citizens of Southern heritage still hate Northerners more than the Germans do? :-)
Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking to filter what the eyes see and what the ears hear
Naming Georges Marshall as "Man of the Century" certainly is a good choice, and most of the points you raise excellent. Here are a few remarks of my own:
Well, that certainly isn't true. Most nations at the start of the Twentieth Century thought about expanding their existing empires and bring more people and territories under their domination. Even the USA were involved in colonialism at the time, with its "management" of the Philippines and other territories it won in the US-Spanish war. Most European nations (France, UK, Germany, Belgium, Spain, etc) had huge empires that spanned the globe -- and most of them considered as a "God-given" right the possibility to dominate other people and cultures. Remember: those were deeply racist times and the white people of the earth truly believed they were the ones to bring light, science, education and Christianity to the poor masses of the rest of the world. Democracy was for WASP, or, at the very least for Rich White Men (no women or "colored" accepted, thank you).
Again, this can be disputed: in most of Europe, the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th Century were periods that saw an incredible surge in spiritism, the "New Age Religion" of that time. Many people then (as now) believed in spiritual planes, in angels and so on and so forth. It is true that science was elevated above everything else -- but most people at the time, even in the richest European countries, still lived in poverty and/or in an agrarian lifestyle, lived and die in the place they were born and totally ignored the world beyond the next village.
One may argue that this fascination with ideology came from the same simplistic vision of the future that was commonly accepted at the time: that science was going to solve every problem and allow us to live an abundant life. Communism and Socialism also came about because of the appaling conditions of the "working class" at the time. While that may not excuse the ignoble murders that followed, Marx (a 19th century prophet of doom) had many things to say, and many that ring true today. In particular, some of his visions about the limit of Capitalism still ring true today.
I would say, in general, that the start of the 20th century was an incredibly naive times -- most people truly reduced human beings to paper caricature and refused to see the complexity of both the world and the creatures that inhabit it.
IMHO, we never climbed out of the pit. We are just sinking down a little bit more slowly...
Let's face it: we are not getting any closer to world peace and cooperation. The one difference between now and 1942 is that the most powerful countries in the world are not fighting each other, as they were then.
On that, I totally agree with you. Marshall did not repeat the terrible, repugnant folly of the Treaty of Versailles and probably paved the way for both peace and prosperity... in Western Europe only.
... And many would argue today that he failed. The UN today is nothing more than an a source of interesting world statistics and a soapbox where poor people of the world can plead for help -- often with no result. It is also interesting to note that the USA, who helped create the UN in the first place, are right now one of its most constant enemies (for instance, because they do not pay their due to the UN). Sadly, the United Nations, like the League of Nations before it, as become increasingly irrelevent as large corporations plunder and extort enormous concessions from the smallest and poorest nations of the world.
Money and brute force are the two most effective forces in the world today. This situation has been the same for most of mankind's history, and I am afraid it will stay this way for all of our history.
The key words here are "lip service". There is no "international" moral code. Morality is not recognized as an important factor in International Law. Morality does not exist as far as nations are concerned. Period.
Example? Tibet/China. Tibet has been oppressed by China for 20? 30 years? What have done to change this? Nothing! Why? Because China's power and headcount make most nation weary of confronting them... and most companies just salivate at the prospect of a prosperous China. Does it really matter China is not a democracy? Of course not -- don't be silly. Money talks.
As Dr Evil would say: "Right...". Well, just remember who it was that divided Europe (and most of the world) between them and Uncle "Joe" Stalin. FDR and Churchill. It was quite convenient to turn a blind eye when the tanks rolled in Prague, Warsaw or Budapest. Most of NATO and the USA hardly ever blinked at the time.
People in Eastern Europe may feel great (maybe just OK, actually) right now -- but people in Russia are not! And the quality of life of most people in Eastern Europe is still way below the rest of Western Europe. Not to mention Bulgaria or Romania, where living standards have been (incredibly) tumbling down from their already low position.
Well, "we" did not fry the planet because "they" also had the bomb. And, even then, "we" came awfully close to frying the planet a couple of times, thank you.
Dear Mr Brin, I am afraid that (like many other science-fiction writer) you succumb to the same idealistic vision you so forcefully (and rightfully) denounce at the start of your essay. We are not entering a Golden Age. There is no Golden Age -- just a long, slow crawl from one era of bloodshed to another. Humanity may have learned a lesson or two during the 20th Century, but probably not enough to pass it on to the next generation (or the generation after that). Proof? Neo-Nazi movements are on the rise again, thanks (in part) to the Internet.
Expect more massacres and ideologies in the near future, despite all the good work of Mr Marshall... One sad "feature" (read: bug) of humanity is that lessons are usually not learned very well, and forgotten as soon as another generation appears on the stage to replace the previous one.
Happy New Year!
I get particularly annoyed by this mistake because this simplistic definition and condemnation tend to be attached to anyone who sees large-scale problems and calls for large-scale solutions. Sometimes the assertion that problems are complex is used to paralyze any kind of action at all, on the grounds that we have to complete our analysis before we do anything even if that takes forever. It's important that over-simplistic thinking be refuted where it's spouted, but I think trying to create a category called "ideology" meaning "analysis of society, its problems and solutions that I don't like" is as meaningless as talking about "pornography" meaning "erotica that I don't like".
There are ills that Hitler and Stalin have in common, but this way of looking at them doesn't capture them.
--
Moderate the parent of this post up...
I can count the amount of times I have been impressed by the contents of a post in the last month I have been reading Slashdot: 0. Until today.
This is one of the most intelligent, insightful and heartfelt posts I have ever read on Slashdot. Why the fsck are people making B&N out to be angels... remember You've Got Mail (Tom Hanks movie)...that was B&N being caricatured...is that who the Slashdot community loves? Why the fsck are people screaming boycott Amazon without mentioning viable alternatives? Where am I going to buy my books & CDs with the cost and service of B&N without supporting some other fscked corporate body? Where is all this indignation when corporations are killing freedom fighters?
PS: For all the people who keep posting their canned responses from Amazon from Erik Majick (sp?) and those who can't wait to tell us they are boycotting Amazon... please stop it's been done dozens of times already on Slashdot... please read this post and purchase a clue.
Bad Command Or File Name
The real irony for me is that the Republican Party is so vehemently against 'Big Government,' but they are always the first to call in the Storm Troopers, form a special Storm Trooper committee and then a Storm Trooper Department, overseen by a subcommittee of Storm Trooper oversight. That a politicain, a public figure, finds a site about him objectionable is understandable, but to look absurd fighting it is divine.
Expanding the FEC to monitor dissenting opinions is wrong in every way. Newspapers and magazines endorse candidates all the time, but more importanly, they endorse positions on political issues. Are they the next to fall under the auspices of the FEC? The fact is that Bush has done some scary things, and said some even scarier things. But he most likely didn't do it on purpose. After all, this is the man that wants to prove that a "C average is good enough for the Presidency." He's funny on his own, and he deserves it just for running. Hubris is placing his C average above mine.*
Furthermore, what about Pat Buchanan? Everytime he speaks he does himself a disservice. Can the FEC censor him in order to maintian the integrity of his campaign? I can't believe the FEC has let Pat Buchanan turn himself into his own caricature.
*I really had a B average.
Hi, this is the troll to whom you're responding.
It's late and I don't have the time or energy to reply in detail to your post, except to say that if it weren't for the fact that my fiance is an Israeli and intolerant of cold weather (Boston just about did her in, and Boston's not that bad), I'd think seriously about a move to Canada, based on your description. I'm sick unto death of the US, and we've been contemplating one place or another in the Commonwealth anyway, 'cause she has Australian citizenship too and the weather in Israel is way too warm for me. The only problem is that I can't fucking stand Sarah MacLaughlin (or however you spell it). Can I substitute Neil Young?
if you think you have no obligation not to destroy us, you are clearly unaware of the many treaties and declarations that the US has signed, including the UN Declaration of Human Rights, just for starters.
The current fashion in "conservative" [rimshot] thought in the US includes not only a revival of states' rights (which we fought that Civil War about, as you mention), but also some bizarre noises about "sovereignty". "Sovereignty", as used in Washington these days, is mainly a code word for violating treaties and refusing to pay our UN dues. The idea seems to be that if we abide by the terms of treaties we've signed, then we're somehow implying, by so doing, that the United States Government is answerable to somebody for its actions -- and if it's answerable to somebody other than its own citizens, then it must not be sovereign! Q.E.D.! This is not a joke. They mean it. They've turned the USA into some kind of tin god, to which no human standards of moral conduct apply when it deals with people other than its own citizens. We seem to have gotten beyond good and evil or something. As a nation dealing with other nations, pure self-interest now held to be the only Law we're permitted to recognize. In the past, God knows we've been amoral in our international dealings, but there was at least a pretense that Christian morality applied to our collective dealings as well as it applies to our individual dealings. But that view is obsolete now.
If you think we've learned any lessons from previous empires, don't kid yourself. They never learned either. Empires are like that.
Ghandi got more with nonviolence than all the fighters ever accomplished to get Britain out of India.
That's true, but don't forget that a few years earlier Michael Collins and friends kicked their Brit asses back across the water without missing a meal
Oh, if it's not obvious: My troll was a satire, an exaggerated caricature of the way some Americans think. I don't believe a word of that shit.
Isn't the real point here that a single point of view, whether it's the view point of Walt Disney the man, Disney the corporation, or the govts of the USSR or the USA, or MS, regardless a single point of view is not rich enough to see what the future will bring and to plan that future for us.
(Christ I hate Explorer and Windows. Let's continue.)
If we want a rich, multi-textured future with nooks and crannies that appeal to what is individual in each of us, we have to continue to keep as much power as possible out of corporations and governments. Sure it is easier to hope that the US govt will solve your personal problems, and tempting when a politician promises you that, but what the US govt will actually deliver will be some bizarre caricature of reality, with as little match to reality as Tomorrowland matches the real world.
Granted on the CDA. I am very grateful that it was found unconstitutional. But the CDA would almost certainly not have been applied to the sites in question. The thing is that limiting sales of pornography is not the same thing as book burning. And yet that is the dichotomy we are eternally presented with. Society tries to assert that "an inch is as good as a mile" and if you are for something in its mildest, most attenuated form, then you must also support its most outrageous excesses.
/not/ the same thing as NSA line-eater code in every router. I think that the government regulating privacy on the net has the potential to be a Good Thing. In fact, I would like to see them do more regulation of Privacy off the net too.
If you're against total freedom for smut on the Internet (I am), its assumed that you are against the free distribution of (for example) Howl by Ginsburg (I'm not). If you're against allowing lesbian and gay households to adopt children (I am) you are assumed to be a homophobic asshole (I'm not). If you're a Christian (I am), you must be either a Fundamentalist (I'm not. On an aside, I wonder how many people who scream about the "Fundies" could define Fundamentalism as a movement? Not many from what I've seen.) or a Liberal Socialist Universalist (I'm not). If you think that Jews need Christ (I do) then you are considered to be a raging anti-semite (I'm not -- In fact, if I had been a German I would have qualified for the death camps, and I loved my Jewish grandfather dearly.)
Our society tries to condense everything into sound bites, reduce all issues to black and white caricatures. This is a Really Bad Thing! In the end, the only safe position is to have no opinions at all.
But back to the point. A little bit of censorship is not the same thing as a lot. And a little bit of government interference in the net is
Yeah, sure, it was somewhat amusing. But at a meta-level, what a bleedin' caricature of the mores of the average geek? Sigh. Groan. Yeah, I got into computers because I was afraid of wimmin. But fer cryin' out loud! For a cartoonist to actually *cater* to that mentality! Reminds of me the first Feynman book. Sigh.
How can you trust combative cruel-types who actively conceal their true intentions? Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should certainly mention that if brain-damaged jackanapes can one day give lawless charlatans (especially the meretricious type) far more credibility than they deserve, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. As will be discussed in more detail later in this letter, John's lackeys are capable of little else but hating and lying, even to each other. What conclusion should we draw from John's scribblings? How about that John couldn't transmogrify society's petty gripes and irrational fears into "issues" to be catered to if his life depended on it, which it doesn't?
His arguments are made of the same spirit that accounts for the majority of the problems we face in this world. Certain facts are clear. For instance, John's assistants fight more for the negative destruction of opposing ideologies than for the positive promotion of their own. It is disgraceful that, with a wink and a smile, John has signified his approval of saturnine antagonists who caricature and stereotype people from other cultures. Is he so anal-retentive as to think that this can go on forever?
In such a brief posting as this, I certainly cannot refute all the credos of bloodthirsty degenerates, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant magic-bullet explanations. My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: He has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and manipulate public understanding of deconstructionism -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. John will utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques before the year is over -- not necessarily by direct action, but by convincing his helpers to nourish contemptuous ideologies. I have always assumed that he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, but the fact of the matter is that we are in trouble when hitherto reputable people bring this battle to a fever pitch. He has made some dangerous assumptions about distasteful spoilsports. But even if we disregard all that and examine only his venal claims, this seems to me to be enough to show that there is something patently callous in the notion that he has achieved sainthood.
John wants to hinder economic growth and job creation, even though, for most people, this desire is neither necessary nor instinctive. I can't stress this enough, but his hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. When John first announced that he wanted to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd, I nearly choked on my own stomach bile. How can we trust him if he doesn't trust us? The mistaken claim that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed is not only incorrect but is somewhat telling of his core sentiments. Just to add a little more perspective, I unmistakeably suspect that people are hungry for true information and for a way to work together for justice in every community.
As for the lies and exaggerations, I myself proudly adopt this stand. How will John's toadies react when they discover that John wants to gum up what were once great ideas? This is equivalent to saying that money is not the solution to our John problem. With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content and incomprehensible as to meaning, he frequently stammers an endless hodgepodge of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are sexist. Only what I call unambitious boeotians can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an "inner experience" from this dung heap of pompous oligarchism.
He can out-reason power-hungry malign lunatics but not anyone else. And let us not forget that he wants to lower our standard of living. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. Doesn't John realize that the surest way for his supporters to succeed is for them to obstruct things? Given his propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that he is a master of psychological manipulation. Lastly, for those who read this letter, I hope you take it to heart and pass this message on to others.
Perhaps a caricature of Gates surrounded by a small, crumbling castle comprised of 0s and 1s next to a rowdy group of hackers and tux working on a big commune comprised of granite letters forming perl commands. Ideally, the 0s and 1s of Gates' castle would be decodable to something interesting such as "Death to Tux" and the perl commands would be a hack that's going to knock the castle down.
A caricature of a penguin fucking in the ass Bill Gates. I think that will "graphically illustrate the ideas that are the basis for Linux". Well, not really. But it would be funny :)
(Please somebody moderate me. Quick!)
How about something like a caricature of Gates (and other well known closed-source ppl) with arms wrapped protectively around a poorly wrapped gift, showing unwillingness to share, even though what they got ain't that great. Amidst them all, perhaps pushing the others out of the way, is Tux with a shiny, nicely wrapped present held out toward the reader. Perhaps marching behind/alongside are some other OSS mascots, to show that we're all in it together but Linux sort of leads the way (in many ppl's minds it does).
Hope this helps spark an idea.
CT
If Paramount really wanted to do something original based on Star Trek, they would at least few times consider the idea of making series or movie that do not revolve around humans. Most of races are well known from series, yet the details of their political system, culture and psychology are defined just enough to be a base for something creative. While I won't really care about a plot that will revolve entirely around Ferengi (it would require to lose everything that even pretends to look seriously), it's perfectly possible to "develop" other races past the level of caricature -- DS9 is less human-dominated than the rest, and it didn't do any harm to the show itself or its "Star Trek-ness", so making a series or movie without a Federation captain running everything wouldn't be that much of a stretch.
But the fact that it wasn't considered probably means that people at Paramount either can't see it, or never cared to look -- instead they have Voyager where they made the best possible excuse for inventing more alien races without any obligation to "develop" them.
I don't think you can really call the New York Madonna Incident (NYMI) an "enforcement" by Christians. I would call it one of the few triumphs of good taste in the past decade.
I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was enforcement. There's a difference.
Until fairly recently, art was the creation of beauty, not social commentary except in a very few instances.
I'm no expert of art, but Picasso's Guernica isn't all that recent, and neither are the centuries of political cartoons that have littered newspapers for as long as we can remember.
I don't think the caricature was invented in the 20th century.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
that *real* people in various walks of life are not portayed accurately in any media - this goes not only for computer professionals of various degrees but doctors, lawyers, policemen, cooks, etc. I'm sure most police officers go thru each day dealing with at lease one person with TV/Movie inspired misconceptions and takes it in stride. It's gets DRAMATIZED for your entertainment enjoyment, exaggerated, caricaturized beyond recognition. In return I like to imagine all Hollywood producers as something like a Mel Brooks but not as clever. :))
I Think the cliche' media types are trying to promote w/ 'hackerz' is something like an updated plain ol' espianoge spy thriller, cloak and dagger intrigue stuff, smuggling messages thru enemy lines, etc, etc, etc.
Chuck
However, I think that Eric misses the value in such a paper. Nikolai's paper answers the question "what are the risks in embarking in an open source development project?", and is the most focused and complete answer I've seen so far. That's very valuable from an advocacy perspective, because advocates need a single URL to point to for a thorough treatment of this frequently asked question. Otherwise, a properly skeptical skeptic won't believe that all of the homework on the subject is done.
Are there better treatments of this subject available that are as complete and focused on the question at hand? I think that this document provides a very good starting point if a better document doesn't exist. Even if a better document does exist, this points out some useful anecdotes and quotations worthy of inclusion in any answer to the risk question.
We have in this thread a huge number of people either failing or refusing to address the point.
Raymond's objection was that Bezroukov's essay went out of its way to caricature and misrepresent his writings. He cited particulars where this was obviously the case. The second-level comments here, ironically, ignore the point even more than Bezroukov's did.
People: The question was whether Bezroukov's comments were relevant and reasonable. Your views on Raymond's politics, his ego, his essays, his pronouncements on the term "GNU/Linux", his skills at diplomacy or lack thereof, his abilities as a "leader", or alleged unwillingness to admit himself wrong, and sundry personal qualities have nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand.
One or two posters made the almost-relevant remark that Raymond relies on works other than "TCatB" to make most of his points. That might have been a valid objection, except that Bezroukov's essay concerned those other works, too. I quote (emphasis added): "Starting with his famous paper "Cathedral and Bazaar" Eric Raymond published a series of articles (see especially his comments on the so-called Halloween documents) he promoted an overoptimistic and simplistic view of open source, as a variant of socialist (or, to be more exact, vulgar Marxist) interpretation of software development."
Bezroukov addressed this remark explicitly to Raymond's entire body of essays on open source. It is explicitly stated up-top as the thesis of his paper.
Critical commentary should be evaluated for accuracy and relevance on its internal merits. That is the proper standard for everything, there: Bezroukov's piece, Raymond's reply, and you people's alleged commentary on Raymond's reply. The commentary here has been consistently off in Cloud-Cuckooland -- which explains in part how you could possibly fail to notice that Bezroukov wrote nothing better than an extended straw-man argument.
You can do better, people. At least I bloody well hope so.
It's also funny, surreal, touching, historically interesting an d contains entertaining caricatures of Messers. Cleese, Idle, Jones et al c. 1965 : truly has to be seen to be believed.
Any Kiwi readers may also find the description of an early tour of NZ stirs some fond recollections ...
Let's try to make an analogy.
We're all in a church group preparing meals for the homeless and invalid. We all donate food with the understanding that it will be given away for free to anyone to asks for it. Bill Gates could get a free meal from our group, if he wants it.
Bob, a local restaurant owner, offers to give us excess food. This is perfectly fine food, but he can't use leftovers in his four-star restaurant.
Would you claim that you can't use Bob's food because he "discriminates" against his customers by charging them for their meals? Or would you recognize that Bob isn't a single-dimensional caricature of a wild-eyed zealot and he doesn't have to follow an arbitrary standard in all things? Hell, would you even consider the possibility that Bob really wants to serve meals to the homeless and his restaurant is simply a way to acquire and pay for the high quality food for the homeless?
Speaking for myself, my reaction when seeing responses like yours is that the GPL isn't worth the trouble. IIRC the BSD license is still DSFG free but is a lot more tolerant of pragmatic coexistence with unenlightened businesses.