Slashdot Mirror
The Virtue of Communal Instincts
The following was written by Slashdot Reader Brian Martin
The Virtue of Communal Instinct With the recent hoopla surrounding Michael Chaney's courtesy to Microsoft, much breath has been given to the discussion of the incident as if there are 'sides' to be taken in some sort of 'battle'. Questions like "Would a Windows NT Admin Have Paid for LINUX.COM" are nothing if not antagonistic. While antagonism has its inherent value, such value is often over-appraised. Most Linux users will preach on the fact that their OS is more reliable, powerful, secure, inexpensive, etc. than the offerings from Microsoft. Microsoft will preach their FUD and usability. Macintosh users sit by and watch the battle with a belief that their OS is better than either of the others. The BSD users stand in the corner with their quiet exclusivity. But this is not an OS issue, it never was.What an unfortunate use of our time and energy to bicker about a commodity piece of software like an OS. Can you honestly say that in the simplest terms your OS matters when using the Internet? I don't believe you can. We as a community are approaching a point where the petty arguments over what OS, browser, e-mail program, etc. are fruitless and mean nothing. The key to the future has never been the messenger, just the message. Sure, it is important that the messenger be fast, reliable, secure, and usable. Sure, it is important that new ideas be constantly integrated, tested, and either kept or dumped. Sure, some avenue should be left for individuals to make a living off of assisting others with a lighter inclination towards computers and the net. But when the messenger in all its glory (or simplicity) becomes the focus of the attention, then the message is lost in the confusion.
We must ask ourselves, as vocal and involved users of the Internet, one simple question: Why do we use the Net? I believe the answer to that question is that somewhere deep inside the bowels of instinct there is a piece of all of us that wants to commune with others. This is not a unique idea, this is not a new idea. If this is the case, then why do we form divisions in the community based on software or hardware selections?
Another more important aspect of this communal instinct is the goal - what do we hope to gain by communing? For some, it is a sense of enlightenment - the perfect end to the infinite search for knowledge. For some, it is a sense of family - the power of belonging. For some, it is a sense of dominance - the power hungry seek for the inexperienced user to prey upon. All of these things lead back to one source - the Ego. All of these things are fodder for the conscious thought. However, when you talk about instinct, you normally think of the id - that part of the human psyche which is the source of instinctual impulses. It seems as if the internet has given us a tool to satiate the communal instinct of the id, but that our Ego hijacks the process.
And what about the superego? What internalized sense of morality is constructed by communing in this way? We see now the uprising of a 'free information' movement. Statements of thought such as "The Cathedral and The Bazaar" have opened many minds to this thread of generosity.
One could suggest that our entire lives, humanity has been growing closer and closer together. The id driving constantly for satiation with a communal sharing of ideas. A rapid spiral of communication where technology is driven by the need for either real or virtual proximity. From the feudal days where you were unlikely to know people who lived further away than a day or two walk, to the age and boom of the telegraph/phone. Add in the invention of the printing press - which provided consistent portability of ideas, not just permanence of those ideas - and the myriad of transportation technologies, and we find this web of connectivity between people. For example, I can be contacted via postal service, telephone, e-mail, pager, instant messaging, or by personal visit. Every one of these methods has seen significant improvement by technology. If we assume that the point of all of this technology is to make it easier to communicate with others, when are we going to adjust our focus from constantly improving the technology to actually using the technology?
This leads us to the natural division of our community rather than some capitalistic ego-driven segregation. The natural order of perception should be understanding what level of balance between computing and communing is right for you, and then reinforcing that with others who seek a similar balance point. Individuals who find peace closer to the computing side of things will be the 'innovators' and 'inventors' of technology. Individuals comfortable at the other end of the spectrum will be the 'enlighteners' and 'internalizers' of idea and thought. With this concept of perception in place, we see that the majority of Internet users are of the 'innovator/inventor' genre. For now, those people who may someday be the 'enlighteners/internalizers' flock to services like AOL - communities that require minimal computing knowledge and experience.
The fact that there will always be individuals at both ends of the spectrum insures the reliability of the medium. It is up to the 'innovators/inventors' to provide the messenger. It is up to the 'enlighteners/internalizers' to provide a concept/idea for the messenger.
What Michael Chaney did was quite simple, quite noble, and a perfect example of an 'innovator/inventor' providing for the masses. He saw a gap, closed it, and enabled probably millions of people to communicate with others over the holiday because of it.
Briefly, this notion of community that the author argues is part of evolution is supported by Richard Dawkins analysis of the evolution of the DNA in "The Selfish Gene" (http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/selfish.h tm).
Most notably is the notion of the "Prisoner's Dilemma", which shows that the most effective path for success of a gene (or of an entire organism or society) is co-operation. Nice explanation and applet at http://www.midwinter.com/~piaw/p risoner/prisoner.htm.
Most people commonly think that the only way is strong competition and the "survival of the fittest", when in fact there is so much evidence against this.
The computer community and the whole 'open-source thang' has always seemed to be in tune with this. Thankfully.
Oliver's Law: Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
- The os and assorted programs define what you are able to do with your computer out of the box. People keep saying that if internet users really wanted a X feature out of the box, the market presures would make it happen. Quite frankly, this is just not true. Due to the Microsoft hegemony, people have a skewed vision of what their OS can do. Many people want their own website but feel it is too hard to get server space without the anoying popups and banner adds. If they kewn and felt that a webserver should come with the OS, would a company like Microsoft give their webserver away? Web serving is a fundimental communication principle that the net uses, but is mostly unavailble on the largest user OS and definately not, in the box.
- Users have a skewed view of what services that they can use out of the box. Has anyone tried to use the default Windows telnet out of the box? Compare that to a Unix telnet. How about IRC? These are fundimental communication technolgies that the 'enlighteners/internalizers' cannot use out of the box because of their OS. If communication is the key to the net (which I feel it is) then how could their OS not matter?
- To return to the subject of services, can anyone imagine their Unix box without telnetd? How about ftpd? Sendmail (or related mail tech)? People cannot utilize their machine to its fullest sense because their OS does not allow that use. Ask yourself, if those services came default in Windows historically and the next release they were taken away, would people not care? They would be furious because their ability to communicate.
- If these people are flocking to AOL and MS because of its ease of use, does that mean they should be denied basic computational and communicative power because they chose a path with a low learning curve? Currently, these people's expressive ablity is limited because they have to go out and typically purchase hundreds of dollars of extra software to get these services. They are seen as extras when really they are almost fundimental rights. Their OS has limited them.
If the people who are flocking to the internet are really going to spend time creating ideas, they need to be able to communicate them. You mention several technologies that have tremendously enhanced people's expressive power. Now, because of the tool that they choose to use, that power is limited. So honestly, I do feel that the OS matters. And not just a little bit, but a LOT. Until people use an OS that provides programs that fully utilize internet services and give easy access to contenet serving, they will be intellectually hampered and unable to realize the full communacative potential that we both feel that they have.Crulx
Red Hat has never made a dime. In fact, it has been losing millions of dollars per employee.
What's more, it does not own its own products! Anyone can publish the same code as Red Hat. The company therefore has virtually no assets as well as no profits.
This does not seem like a good argument for using the GNU Public Virus. In fact, it's a great argument against it.
--Brett
People who get Windows don't even get QBASIC anymore. "Programming" is something other people do. It used to be when you bought a computer ALL you would get is ROM BASIC and everyone was a programmer... at least a BASIC programmer. Books about how to use your computer were about how to write BASIC programs. Visual C++ or Visual Basic are pretty expensive. I think you'd either have to be a programmer already, thinking of some way to make your money back, or trying to learn it as a marketable skill. Linux comes with tons of programming languages and development tools, it's hard NOT to learn how to program.
Yet OpenBSD has produced the most secure OS in existence? What does the license really matter? When you have to solve a technical problem like security, the license is not on the agenda of issues. OBSD does not 'depend on' the license for its existence; nor does it depend on any other code for its existence. It's organization is integrated, as in an integrated society (i.e., Lucacz's view of the Hellenistic culture); where as the GNU group is not, they abide by principles in common but do not operate in common.
Practically speaking, who cares? You say 'tomaeto' I say 'tomawto.' These discussions that incorporate philosophy with tools are academic.
If learned anything in my miserable years in law school it's this. If the laws, contracts or licenses restrict some activity upon which one *must* proceed, then survey the legal landscape and come up with a new way to articulate your activity so that it conforms to the standard. In most cases of business activity you can do this with success. Laws are putty attempting to bind. The are not hard and fast such that they can be broken; that's just how we talk in common parlance. In practice, the law is almost completely grey shaded and one can almost always articulate an activity such that it remains in the grey without touching the edges of black and white.
This approach to legal activity that I described can be seen as opportunistic or manipulative. However, it is also factually based, and characterizes the real way real people operate in our society. The successful people take it to an artform.
People who are idealistic (and I once was very idealistic) try to formulate truisms that rarely fit into the elastic system. Formulating hard and fast rules 'just feels good' because it prevents our minds from reaching into the fog of the grey areas, and we can live out in the area of black and white where most people don't operate. The black and white rules are a way to relax mentally. I recommend you take up fly fishing or yoga instead.
The world is in a state of tension; society is in flux; it's all stirred up. I'm no fan of lawyers, the law or the system, but unless you've got your finger on the button you will not change the world. Live in it; use it; it's a fun game...; play.
Wrong. This is exactly the kind of post we want, even if it has that touch of intellectual 'smarmyness' to it.. Makes you think, makes you go 'Now how the hell did he get Karl Marx's trade union stuff tied into the GPL and Microsoft'
.sig: Now legally binding!
I put that in quotes because i'm skeptical of "human nature," if only because it smacks of us having some inability to control ourselves. Still, I feel a need (as do all of us, at some times) to be a part of a group. For example, while I'm not the great technophile a lot of /.'rs are, I feel like a part of the Linux/Free Software/etc. movement, and I get a good rush of self-satisfaction when I'm explaining the evils of MS, Intel, patents, closed source, etc.
The rush comes from the feeling that because I know these things, and they are The Truth (TM), I am better than the people I am explaining to them. In all truth, I'm masterbating my ego, as is anyone that feels "superior" to a person simply because they have different ideas about things.
To some extent, this kind of schism in society is a good thing, because educated people try really hard to justify their views, and in the process they get or generate a lot of new information, and sometimes actually prove themselves right. It's even more entertaining when they prove themselves wrong though. So get to work, MS!
On the other hand, this strife can be (and has been) taken to unhealthy extremes, which is where a lot of war, institutionalized discrimination, and other Bad Stuff (TM) comes from.
The trick, I suppose, is in finding the balance.
-Ristoril
Except that the Prussian state was unstable. And it was unstable for the same reason that Brian's utopian ideal is unstable. It's the reason that Karl Marx (early, pre Communist Manifesto) identified in a statement which was shocking at the time, but so true that these days it's taken as obvious.
Between genuinely opposing interests, there can be no compromise
We can't all work together, because some of "us" depend for "our" existence on keeping code proprietary, and some of us depend on keeping it free. Microsoft can't compromise with free-software, because if it does, it effectively dies as Microsoft. Sure, it could exist as a distro company for FreeWindows2000, but it would no longer be Microsoft in anything but name.
Similarly, it's not possible to say that you want "most" code to be open source, any more than you can say you want "most" speech to be free. Freedom scales in some ways, but not in this way. The existence of the whole copyright/patent/trademark legal nexus is inimical to the free exchange of information. It's a part of "the system" (a term degraded by the dull hippies who coined it) -- the legal and political superstructure put up to serve the interests of those who control the economic base.
Microsoft and free software have fundamentally inconsistent economic interests, so any accomodation between them has to be unstable, and prone to collapse. There's no way around it. Compromises, whether it's a sickly Christmas fairy-story, or the OpenBSD license, are attempts to kid oneself. They are nice illusions, and people like Mike Chaney and the OpenBSD advocates are to be praised for trying to make things good, but the fact is that opposites are irreconcilable. We need to stop kidding ourselves.
Marx said it best himself:
We need to see the copyright/patent/trademark proprietary structure for what it is -- a restriction on our freedom. Articles like this are just attempts to put more flowers on the chain.
I think all Michael Chaney wanted to do was check his damn email. Some people rely on it.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
There were plenty of tyrants, its just that they varied greatly in the degree to which relied on hypocritical moral indoctrination of their subjects.
Tell me how is evolution politically correct.
On the contrary, the open and honest study of evolution is almost the definition of what is politically INcorrect. Reread what I said.
Most of what I have seen in the world in terms of political correctness has essentially been groups whom they think are under represented are suddently in a position to exploit a government or a faction for their own self interest.
Exactly, and this is within a society that has, as a cultural norm, placed examination and open dialogue of the genetic drivers of such groups in about the same class of moral bankruptcy as child molestation. Hence, hypocrisy and self-deception is the goal of the current eugenics progrom conducted by the Politically Correct Empire as it is with all heterogenous empires built primarily on moral control of their subjects.
What exactly is a "genetic self-interest".
The behavior of organisms that appears to place propagation of their genes above their individual well-being -- such as a male frequently engaging in sex without a condom with lots of partners of the opposite sex, as one minor but graphic example. Cynics might try to give such a character a "Darwin Award" but the laugh would be on those cynics -- evolution doesn't always select for intelligence.
See Dawkins The Extended Phenotype.
Tell me why nationalism is hypocritical
Nationalism is certainly is less hypocritical than JudeoChristianity, Marxism and Political Correctness, but a very good example is the difference between pre-unification Prussia (attacked by Marx) and post-unification Germany (that spawned National Socialism):
Prussia represented a smaller set of tribal groups (root word of demography) that had a lot more in common than did Hitler's unified Germany, so it was less hypocritical to be a Prussian Nationalist than a Nazi just as it is less hypocritical to be a Nazi than a Marxist. These days, we have this "european identity" hypocrisy in the form of the European Community, the Euro, etc. which is bound to get worse as it takes hold.
The last part of that sentence translates (again correct me if I'm wrong) says:
"The people who don't agree with the program and feel united are then enslaved by the people who don't get with it."
That is a bad translation.
The Prisoner's Dilemma is about people having a choice to cooperate and share big winnings, vs one exploiting the other, in which case the exploiter wins bigger than he would if he had cooperated and the exploited loses big, or, in the ultimate degeneration, they both try to exploit the other, and everyone loses big.
Real life is a lot like that, which is why that particular scenario is studied so heavily in game theory.
By the same token, since real life is a lot like that, there many who would rather not study the genetic evolutionary implications of the Prisoner's Dilemma. One exception to that rule is Michael Oliphant, and I strongly suggest reading his stuff.
Now I am a little confused about what you mean by "morality" in this case.
I mean the capacity to take on a system of morals and abide by it with fidelity, even when it runs counter to one's self interest or the self interest of one's genes.
So are you saying that anarchy is the best form of government
No. I'm saying tribal/clan/kindred identities are rooted in evolutionary history more than are national identities and national identities are more rooted in evolutionary history than are universalist ideologies. If you want to see how I would handle governance, please read what I have to say about the nature of money and government.
Seastead this.
While I'm sort of rambling let me just add some more.
/hurts/. It can only help. Bad things happen through ignorance or malice. I am not so pessimistic to think humans are naturally evil and exploitive, so I like to think that malice stems from ignorance. It then follows that all ills can be cured by dispersal of knowledge. Although that sounds laughably optimistic, I do agree with that to a large extent...communications is raising the knowledge level and awareness of people.
/we/ are using communications technology, and not the other way around. (really, do we need X-hundred cable stations, a pager, a cell phone, 3 instant messagers, and 4 email accounts? who's at the service of whom?)
Somebody will say that communications is equalizing us. I think this is very true. Another pet belief of mine, and I'm sure many who frequent this site, is that knowledge never
At the same time though, my previous argument says that communications are making our relationships less meaningful. So it seems the same technology which is equalizing us, is having the effect of equalizing us by making all of us more distant, debilitated. I can quickly physically equalize pretty much everybody by removing their limbs. Would we would all then rejoice that we are equal? I guess it's the cliched double-edged sword. We are equal by means of being a commodity. If you are presented with aisles upon aisles of bags of sugar (some commodity produc), they will all seem pretty equal.
Returning to Marx, I think we should be careful that
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Thank you for that, I'm sick of this attitude that money is a means in itself, and anything that won't make money is a waste of time.
The point behind the GPL is to let people freely share software with others, not a new business plan (although there is no conflict of interest with companies which genuinely further free software making money from support.)
But anyone expressing these views on /. is put down as a "communist" as if there are only two political ways - pure capitalism, and communism.
Perhaps if more people had the same ideals of community and sharing (join with us and share the software, so to speak;) there'd be a lot less problems in the world.
p.s. remember that advertisers are the maggots feeding on the corpse of capitalism (Karl Marx - never as funny as his brother, Groucho)
--
Karl Marx would have seen this for what it is -- a wish that things could be other than they are. Hegel's dialetic was one in which synthesis was achieved between opposites. For example, the aristocracy and the populace found their
..theory has removed the flowers from the chain, not so that man shall wear the unadorned chain, but so that he may recognise the chain for what it is, and throw off his shackles so that he may pick the flowers as
synthesis in the highest form of human organisation -- the Prussian state.
I really cannot see how the pre united germany (germany before 1870's) was very powerful or the epitome of the state. Generally we have not seen anything close except attempts made by Hitler and Stalin wherein the state was everyhting. If I were a peseant I would rather see the aristocracy die in a rather bloody and cruel way sooner than actually help them. For one simple reason: they are the haves and I am one of the have nots. They can spend all day doing whatever they want and I have to do my dull little tasks. They never have want and have many excesses and I have many wants and no excesses. Do you see a pattern. There is no way short of brainwashing to actually get a people to go along with this in any way.
Except that the Prussian state was unstable. And it was unstable for the same reason that Brian's utopian ideal is unstable. It's the reason that Karl Marx (early, pre Communist Manifesto) identified in a statement which was shocking
at the time, but so true that these days it's taken as obvious.
Between genuinely opposing interests, there can be no compromise
Yes. However you need those to define both. I was thinking about this. Consider if we use the idea of Satan and God (many may hate this but it gets the message across). Satan is the embodiment of all the evil in the world. Now suppose that God does in fact destroy Satan. Since there is no opposite to actually become evil we have what ammounts to no evil. Without that evil element there is no good and then anything that you do becomes good because evil has been distroyed. If say proprietary software were distroyed in some way (say secret police make everyone give up their code to the government) then anything that the government does is in fact just a movemnt of the open-source group. This may not be totally correct but it comes close. I can be good or bad but when bad is distroyed then I am just a different shade of good.
We can't all work together, because some of "us" depend for "our" existence on keeping code proprietary, and some of us depend on keeping it free. Microsoft can't compromise with free-software, because if it does, it effectively dies as
Microsoft. Sure, it could exist as a distro company for FreeWindows2000, but it would no longer be Microsoft in anything but name.
You would have to associate all the behaviour of Microsoft with what they are (a software company). If we look at what would happen with them if they decided to actually give away their code they are in fact not distroyed as an entity they are merely just changing tactics. Suppose we look at policy of the US military in the 19th and 20th centuries. Now the military was still in the same country and potentially all of the same people were involved with it however what changed were the tactics and more global conflicts that didn't happen in the 19th century.
Similarly, it's not possible to say that you want "most" code to be open source, any more than you can say you want "most" speech to be free. Freedom scales in some ways, but not in this way. The existence of the whole
copyright/patent/trademark legal nexus is inimical to the free exchange of information. It's a part of "the system" (a term degraded by the dull hippies who coined it) -- the legal and political superstructure put up to serve the interests of
those who control the economic base.
Maybe but what is actually very interesting is that those same hippies (most of them) decided when they really needed something that they would have to take something from the system. To totally rebel and oppose the system would mean that the system and those who operate it would have to be totally distroyed. Maybe something similar to the French revolution in socpe and blood. You can have an effective system where some code is free and some code makes you pay for it. What this creates is a good ecconomy and allows for more people to have that better job so that they can code software for free. I can't tell you how irritating that computers cost so damn much. However this has resolved me that when I do get a sum of money (about $3,000) I will get the best computer that could be sold to the average person or that is just before an exponentially more expensive system (mainframe/high end server). This means that some very lucky company some time in the future will get my business because of my jealousy and burning desire for what others have. Now I could always just get a group of terrorists and just rob a computer store with force but that's not as simple or as perhaps safe as I would like. I think that people trust the system because they don't like the altenative.
People sound interesting and all ivory tower for awhile but when they really get dowm to brass tacks then begin to realize: hey that bum on the corner could be me. Or that old man who is bitter and has no friends down the street could be me in 40 years or something like that. People don't really think and take a minute to internalize that ecconomic solvency is what drives us. It used to be an option to just leave town and set up shack in the woods. However Fredric Jackson Turner in his essay in 1891 officially said that there was no more frontier. That was 109 years ago roughly. If a man who has grown up knowing the difference between wide open spaces and urban sprawl said that there was no more space left dosn't that mean that obviously there is none left as well now? This means that we have to operate in the capitalistic system because we don't have any other choice. Well except suicide or perhaps just infinite suffering. Usually these two options do not appeal to most people because in out popular media they are rather frowned upon for what they create.
Microsoft and free software have fundamentally inconsistent economic interests, so any accomodation between them has to be unstable, and prone to collapse. There's no way around it. Compromises, whether it's a sickly Christmas
fairy-story, or the OpenBSD license, are attempts to kid oneself. They are nice illusions, and people like Mike Chaney and the OpenBSD advocates are to be praised for trying to make things good, but the fact is that opposites are
irreconcilable. We need to stop kidding ourselves.
Well there is a word and a concept that was taken from the cold war. MAD. Basically the world had created the most powerful weapons that could possibly be created. Essentially this could very possibly just decimate billions. Now when this was realized people resorted to just claiming what people already expected who were in the know. Mutual Assured Destruction. That boils down to the following statement "Well if you try to kill me. I will kill you too!!" type thing. Another concept is that we are racing to an apocalypse of our own creation. Essentially that attitide creates a climate of nihilism and allows for either a slow disipation of thought or just a massive climax that destorys usually both parties. I would rather prolong that eventual climax as long as possible and just concentrate in changing every possible faction that I can insead of just going out ranting and raving with an automatic weapon in my hand.
Marx said it best himself:
they are
We need to see the copyright/patent/trademark proprietary structure for what it is -- a restriction on our freedom. Articles like this are just attempts to put more flowers on the chain.
Again this is quite bad. Just look at it this way. I don't suppose you ever had a hard time getting some form of employment in you life right? Well that kind of proposition just damn well scares me. In general you have to get something to make sure that you don't die of starvation (really nasty thing: hallucinations, massive fatigue, intense intestinal pain, bloated stomach, (see Africa south of the Sahara for prime examples)). We have used methods of "progress" to raise the bar so to speak. What that translates into is that it becomes harder and harder to do something that makes an "average" wage. Back in the good old days (say 1700-1850 or so) people usually did the same thing: farm. Farmers usually did the same work and that was how it was. Because of this you didn't feel cheated and you didn't need to have a great deal of your disadvantages broadcast to the world through your station in life. It was a goods ecconomy. Because of this people had a rather easy time to get things done. You just simply were a farmer along with everyone else; you hated the wealthy and praised the poor people like you. What the so called "information" age has created is that people are by no means guaranteed anything. This is the epitome of nihilistic thought. Essentially it is so very easy to fail and never realize anything that it becomes almost frightening. When I have to have an almost flawless interpretation of logic just to get by that makes for rather interesting living.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Karl Marx ... Between genuinely opposing interests, there can be no compromise.
And Marx was essentially a means by which the ancient enemy of all honorable peoples could continue the essential "we are the world" hypocrisy of JudeoChristianity despite the disruptions of post-Enlightenment forces like Darwin.
There is a reason why Drawin's theories and study of genetics were suppressed in the empires spawned by Marx/Engels, and it is essentially the same reason they are taboo in in much of JudeoChristiandom as well as the newest religion of Empires, Political Correctness:
The real and enduring opposing interests, until we take responsibility for them as a technological civilization, are genetic self interests. Within JudeoChristianity, Marxism and Political Correctness (not to mention lesser forms of hypocrisy such as Nationalism) we are all supposed to identify as one people so that those instinctively less prone to having their kin-altruism abused can exploit us at their leisure -- until there are no people left who are capable of morality.
That means the end of the moral animal: Man.
I don't think Open Source is therefore working against the existence of Man, but I do think we had have to start paying a lot of attention to studies of altruism and communication in the presence of the Prisoner's Dilemma predict for Empires built on over-extended kin identification -- as well as the history of moral systems that condemn open dialogue about genetic tendencies to defect within our global Prisoner's Dilemma.
Seastead this.
Nationalist hypocrisy generally preaches a natural social order exists in which kin groups of less diversity and scale than the nation are of no consequence -- one big happy national family and all that. Of course what really happens is that those who generally promote this view are serving their own genetically related clans/tribes/kindreds at the expense of those who are most prone to childhood imprinting and honorable duty in adulthood.
Nationalism can be compared to Marxism because the "one big happy family" promised by Marxism is even bigger and more diverse, therefore the occurance of exploiters is far greater.
As bad as it was, Nazi Germany wasn't as destructive as Soviet empire.
Seastead this.
This is a nice statment. "You may own the sky if others can still see the blue." Is a nice statement too. Can you back your statement up?Lets see.
Your Support: Since ideas are not "rival" goods (my consumption of them does not preclude your consumption), this clearly suggests that ideas cannot be made property in this way.
I cringe to actually call this support. You are merely restating what Locke said, and poorly. You state, "an idea can be consumed by multiple people and still exist". You also state, "An idea cannot be property." I leave it to you to please explain how the first suggests the second? Again, nice statements, but thats all I see, nice statements with no connection.
It is them who are trying to make me their slave, by demanding that I not say or write certain things so that they can create an artificial scarcity of an abundant good.
I have to start in the middle here. First of all, if the creator of an idea does not share that idea (or sell it) then can you claim you would have had the idea anyway? A demonstration. Please write down the entire score to Mozart's Requiem. Oh, and do it without looking at a copy of the score. Can you? I didn't think so. You claim that if Mozart tells you that you can't copy his score (his intellectual property) that he is making you his slave. What if he never releases it to start with. If Mozart never writes the score to his Requiem, are you still his slave because he has the idea for the score in his mind? Does that not also make him slave to all the ideas and thoughts you have that you do not share with the world? Perhaps he is slave to your thoughts about dying your underwear blue. As I have demonstrated, claiming that someone is making you their slave by NOT sharing their information with you is absurd. If ideas are truly free, then we would need to spend our time walking around proclaiming every thought we have to the world in order to make the ideas of the world TRULY free. Either that, or we are ALL slaves to everyone else, all the time. Oh, unless of course you only mean popular ideas that you want to use. Unpopular ideas are not free, only popular ones? Under your own idea, are you contributing your ideas to the world?
I am not trying to make anyone my slave -- I am not trying to stop them from doing anything
I have to use another example here. Orson Scott Card writes a book. Before that book goes to print, you get a copy. Since "intellectual property" doesn't exist, you print your own 1 million copies and sell them for $1.00 less each than Mr Card's publishing company. You can do this because you are not paying Mr Card royalties for his work. You don't have to because "ideas are free" and the book is an idea. Since your books are cheaper, everyone buys your books and not his. Mr. Card spent a year writing this book. During that time, he did not have another job because he needed to focus his energies to writing this book. The revenue from this book would pay his bills from the past year. Now, all his work for the past year earns him nothing and he starves. That doesn't sound like a slave to you? Your right.. slaves are usually given bread and water to keep them producing, you are beyond that. You want to give the people who reap your cotten NOTHING in return for their hard labor. Are the people who want to protect their intellectual property the greedy ones, or are you? Take a look in the mirror.
I look forward to your reply.
"Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough." - Larry Wall
Similar murders are part of all such "unifications" -- this is something that gets about a factor of 100 under-acknowledged in these issues.
The wars in the Balkans are a feature of that part of the world as a boundary between Empires.
Seastead this.
Nationalism can be compared to Marxism because the "one big happy family" promised by Marxism is even bigger and more diverse, therefore the occurance of exploiters is far greater.
to which Axiom replied:
How does diversity increase the chance of exploitation? In order to argue that, you must assume that the ratio of "exploiters" to "non-exploiters" in each culturally distinct group is different (and larger in the ones that aren't part of the predominant national group).
No I don't. I could, for example, assume merely that the chance of any two "groups" trying to exploit the other is dependent entirely on random factors that emerge only when the two groups encounter each other.
So if you have N groups, you have N*(N-1)/2 distinct ways in which exploitation might be selected for. Note I didn't have to hypothesize a "gene for" exploitation in general.
Further, I had written:
As bad as it was, Nazi Germany wasn't as destructive as Soviet empire.
To which Axiom replied:
Guess it all depends on whose point of view you look at it from, doesn't it? And also what you define as "destructive"...
Well, I guess if I looked at it from the Gypsy point of view, more of my people got taken out per capita by far than even the Jews in Nazi occupied countries, so you're certainly right on the first point.
However, if you look at it from the "one big happy family of humans" point of view:
Since more people, per capita were taken out by the Trotsky/Lennin/Stalin purges than were taken out of the nations participating in WW II, it is certainly reasonable to declare the Soviet Empire more destructive than Nazi Germany.
Seastead this.
Yes. The fact that "one big happy family" empires exploit those outside "the family" as well as those inside "the family" comes as no surprise to anyone. The topic of dicsussion was "the virtue of communal instincts" and people are typically unaware of how profoundly destructive it is to exploit people with community spirit as opposed to simple brute, and relatively unhypocritical, despotism.
Seastead this.
And Marx was essentially a means by which the ancient enemy of all honorable peoples could continue the essential "we are the world" hypocrisy of JudeoChristianity despite the disruptions of post-Enlightenment forces like Darwin.
Well if you don't think that tyrants of the world were there before Jews and eventually Christianity you are wrong. Ever hear of people like Ghengis Khan, How about Mao? Maybe hitler? I seriously doubt Hitler was a church going man at all.
There is a reason why Drawin's theories and study of genetics were suppressed in the empires spawned by Marx/Engels, and it is essentially the same reason they are taboo in in much of JudeoChristiandom as well as the newest
religion of Empires, Political Correctness:
Tell me how is evolution politically correct. Most of what I have seen in the world in terms of political correctness has essentially been groups whom they think are under represented are suddently in a position to exploit a government or a faction for their own self interest.
The real and enduring opposing interests, until we take responsibility for them as a technological civilization, are genetic self interests. Within JudeoChristianity, Marxism and Political Correctness (not to mention lesser forms of
hypocrisy such as Nationalism) we are all supposed to identify as one people so that those instinctively less prone to having their kin-altruism abused can exploit us at their leisure -- until there are no people left who are capable of
morality.
Hmm. This really dosn't 'jive' with what most people think. What exactly is a "genetic self-interest". Why do people now that we posess technology have to make so form of choice in terms of genetics? You know computers and people's genes don't have to mix you know. We could have computers and still ride around on cammels use swords and ride in chariots. Nothing says that technology has to do anything it's just an add on feature.
Now honestly what I really have a shaky grasp of is the last sentence of this little thing.
Within JudeoChristianity, Marxism and Political Correctness (not to mention lesser forms of
hypocrisy such as Nationalism) we are all supposed to identify as one people so that those instinctively less prone to having their kin-altruism abused can exploit us at their leisure -- until there are no people left who are capable of
morality.
Tell me why nationalism is hypocritical in it's motives and aims. The aim is simple to create a nation state. How the people choose to relate to that state is a function of their choice and governmental impact. Nationalism does everything it says it does it just dosn't do it well all the time like every form of government. Oh by the way usuaully the more "fairy tale" forms of government you read about in fantasy books usually hint at one of two things:
1. Control by a government that is eventually embraced through a carefully constructed form of information.
2. Biological intervention in the form of having a way to easily transcend the unpopularity or the problems associated with that regime. Usually this means that they are into the inner self or a strong myth base or even the fact that they can leave.
The last part of that sentence translates (again correct me if I'm wrong) says:
"The peole who don't agree with the program and feel united are then enslaved by the people who don't get with it."
I'm sorry but this just is wrong. That would mean that hippies would rule the world and eventually kill "morality".
Now I am a little confused about what you mean by "morality" in this case. Usually that word is associated with clear cut ideas of what is right and wrong. This is usually associated with nation states and strong governments and not anarchy. So are you saying that anarchy is the best form of government (oops no Christians or Jews or any organized large religion that has a code of conduct) and that all others are repressive?
This just sounds like so many ideas lumped together. You should seperate all the ideas out and process them one by one. It might make it longer but for the majority of people in the world it's a little easier to understand.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
I learned about Locke in higschool... american education.....
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Well, it really really depends on what you're doing on the net. There are apparently people happy with WebTV.
But no one would argue that they are using the internet to its fullest communication ability. From what I have seen, when people go to buy a computer, they want it to be fully utilized. People with WebTv are skimming the surface, and unless they believe Microsoft's hype about WebTv, they know it. (The argument that most believe the hype is for another time)
Um well yes they do actually, if you buy NT Server...And if you're using FrontPage ...
My point was that a webserver (hell, and browser for that matter, despite the DOJ trial) is part of the essential ocmputer componants that you should receive when you get an OS. Yes, there are tons of pay and free webservers for Windows. None of them come with the generic OS. And most people don't understand that they can get and install them. If it came default and already preinstalled, like RedHat, they have a much larger chance of using it. And this use would increase the user's connectivity and ability to disseminate information. If the feature's author states this as the highest goal, then the OS matters.
me> Has anyone tried to use the default Windows telnet out of the box?
Uh yes, actually it works just fine for my needs, thank you.
Dude, the program sucks. It emulates vt100. No color. Its configuration is simple, but incomplete. It has serious problems if it cannot resolve a domain name (It can hang). (Haven't checked the win98 version, but that was true in the older ones) But I understand this can be a personal preference, so I'll drop the point.
Who's denying anyone?
Denying was a bad choice of words. I should have said, not making easily accessible. It amounts to the same thing when you are looking for a low learning curve. If all this technology is supposed to make everyone communicate easier, then it should be defaulted to do just that. Not require someone to download a webserver and set everything up themselves.
As for wanting to turn their computer off, with the advent of DSL and other "always on" internet technologies, the startup and shutdown process is going to become less and less frequent with home users. I think we are seeing trends in this direction. I'd like more numbers on this though.
As far as box crackers goes, you are right in some respects. People will not want to deal with the hazards. Distro's should come with a completely empty cgi-bin directory. Most webservers that server only static content are pretty "hardened". And if more and more people leave their computers always on, extremely unsecure OS's like Windows are going to be taking more hits from trojan's than crackers anyway.
My point is that if expressive power is what is going to fuel internet growth and use, and is its main benefit to society, then the OS you choose does make a difference in that it defines what you think your computer can easily do as opposed to going out and doing work and learning about things that may not interest you for youself.
And who knows, people are pretty interested in what is lying around on their computer. If your Mom may become interested in the source of her webserver if it was just sitting there. Stranger things have happend. *grin*
Crulx
Then you don't disagree with "Mr RMS and all like him" since "they" have no problem with charging money for (software) products.
(Perhaps if you did a better job researching, and thinking through, what people like RMS actually say, you wouldn't have to post anonymously? Heck, I'm amazed someone wasted a moderation point of "Insightful" on your post, but at least that helped it catch my eye.)
Of course, RMS and others (like myself) have written and then given away software, but we've also gotten paid $$ to write Open Source Software as well. (RMS gets paid much better than I do, though.) No moral/ethical/legal problem with that. I don't know what percentage of the source code in GCC was paid for (to get written), but it's probably well over 50%.
Does that throw your assumptions about what "Mr RMS" says completely out of the water, or what?
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
"Ignorance of what? Does the murderer kill because he's ignorant of the fact that it's wrong? Does the rapist rape because he doesn't know any better? And if they are ignorant of these facts, then why is that so? What's the root of this ignorance?"
/good/ thing...let me do it". Many troubles in this world, if not most, stem for prejudice and a lack of understanding, from ignorance.
/really/ think criminals behave aberrently because they misunderstand right and wrong? Do you /really/ think a theif thinks it is a /good/ thing to steal? Or a murderer thinks that it would be a /good/ thing to murder?
/not/ admissible.
/facts/ known to everybody, then everybody will have to come to an accepted version of reality. Facts are not based on your or my perception of right and wrong. They just are.
/ignore/ the information given to them, no amount of information in the world will help them. But certainly giving out less information, disallowing people to become more aware, certainly will not result in more people with knowledge than freely and actively spreading information.
:-)"
/aware/. I think our society (US specific, and the world as a whole) is becoming a lot more culturally-tolerant, neutral and accepting, and is shedding a lot of old prejudices, and also starting to ask questions we should - about our governments, our ecosystems, etc.
Ok, let me clarify. Perhaps I should have said discrimination, or prejudice stems from ignorance. The murderer and rapist probably have a lot more wrong with them than just discrimination, or prejudice, but surely those crimes do happen in many cases due to discriminition or prejudice. My point is that I believe that humans are born murderers or rapists. For most voilent criminals, chances are either something psychologically traumatic happened sometime in theire lifetime, or some sort of chemical imbalance causes them to behave psychologically unstable. Surely murderers and rapists aren't doing these things because they are misunderstanding "right" and "wrong". Do you really think a sane person would think to themselves "Hmm...I think murdering that guy would be a truly
"I'm personally convinced that ignorance stems from a reckless disregard for a basis of absolute
right and wrong."
I don't buy this moral absolutism at all. Do you
"If this basis is lost, everything is relative, and anything is admissible."
Everything is relative. Not everything is admissible though. The UN has outlined a universal bill or human rights that pretty much describes what is
""Knowledge-dispersal" and "awareness-raising" can only do so much when they're based on shifting, ever-changing notions of what's acceptable and what isn't."
Well, that's the point. Knowledge, information, has no bias, has no moral stance. Facts are agnostic of any one belief system. So, by spreading information, making the same
"Just a minor point, but I think communications is only increasing the information available to people."
Ok, sure. Information and knowledge are two slightly different things. I didn't make the distinction. Knowledge is internalized information. If people should to
"Knowledge...I don't know. It sure doesn't seem like people are getting any smarter.
Look at "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" for an example of that. I had harder questions than that in the third grade!
Well, if not smarter, than at least more
It seems to me "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" is more based on trivia than useful information. I'd say Jeopardy is a better guage. We've had Jeopardy for a long time, and still do.
"But then what about the community factor? I have to agree that all our gadgets and gizmos
have made people more distant and disengaged. Sure, there are virtual communities, but are
they anything like a real community? Can everybody get together when the electricity goes out
for three days to stay warm, light a fire, and cook on the grill (despite the freezing rain)? It's possible and expected to communicate with vast numbers of people on the internet, but where's the depth, the personal in interpersonal communications?
Don't get me wrong, I think communications are a good thing. I like being able to call and e-mail
friends and family who live half a country (or world) away. But looking to communications to
solve all the world's inequities and woes...I personally don't think that's such a good thing."
Entirely agreed.
Aaron
(please excuse the quoting if it comes out horrible)
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Personally, I prefer the Triune Brain and variations thereof. The "power" which the original author ascribed to high-level conscious thought would be low-level reptilian preservation and domination instinct. The "community" is from the mammalian brain, whose emotions often are wired for herd or wolf-pack behavior, depending upon the species.
This article has some interesting observations, but I think they are pigeonholed in some obsolete psychological technology.
I gotta disagree on this one. For those who have access to a computer, the internet, yes, is quite an equalizer. But not everyone has access to a computer. Sure, libraries and schools have computers that are "Open to the public", but this simply does not pan out in reality. The guy sleeping on the street cannot walk into a library and log onto a computer unfettered (of course, the more important fact is, he will not, he's too busy fighting off hypothermia).
Point is, while the internet provides an interesting case study of human communalization, it does not remove the economic barriers. The people who were outcasts yesterday are still outcasts today. If we form communities on the net, it is largely because we are already in communities in real life - most of us are employable, mildly educated, and well fed.
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
We need to stop kidding ourselves.
You left out some framing and context about where these quotes are from:
The quote about the chain comes in a discussion about religion and how criticism of it is necessary in Germany from Contribution To The Critique Of Hegel's Philosophy Of Law
Criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man shall wear the unadorned, bleak chain but so that he will shake off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man to make him think and act and shape his reality like a man who has been disillusioned and has come to reason, so that he will revolve round himself and therefore round his true sun. Religion is only the illusory sun which revolves round man as long as he does not revolve round himself.
Even if your post is a troll, I agree that that is what most of us do with our shallow political philosophies that avoid the reality that any revolution will be a class revolution.
Could you provide context for your "opposing interest quote"? Here's a nice one where he talks about how one only sees parliamentary activity of 2 kinds, the compromise kind that
is the parliamentary activity of free traders with protectionists, gold standard with silver standard men, pro and anti-Trust people -- in short, elements who stand upon the common ground of the capitalist system.
and the other kind which is by socialist representatives who admit no compromise with the capitalist regime.
What fun!
I think a lot of what you've covered is perfectly valid. I also think there are other areas that you've left out. In many cases, such as /.'s first posters, the only thing people are striving for is visability and notice (note that this is different from recognition). There are also people that are lurkers on lists and portals that are simply looking for an information source. Both these types are using the medium in half-duplex mode and not making optimum use of the interchange. This is seen in real life in situations where people are talked at/lectured, rather than conversed with. You can think of the lurkers as being the tv/radio consumers and the first posters as the evangelical preachers, in the pulpit and saying their beliefs, regardless of the interest of the listeners. I think that the infomation exchange seen in interacting with the web and others is really a two way street for it to have any value and half-duplex usage is like posting to /dev/null.
There, I feel better... I wonder if it'll get read?
8^)
Open source has made it possible for people with ideas and a message to build tools that either embody it or enable it if they have the talent.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
The democratic socialist movement is making huge advances in membership. Although I'm sure that you would prefer the old, inhuman system of randite capitalism, some of us prefer to take this imperfect system and kick out the
door where it belongs. Face it, not everyone buys into your notions of the benefits of capitalism with which people like you are brainwashed at a young age. Get over it: human society and brotherhood are the important aspects of
human civilization. Capital is merely one way of forming a living, but it is hardly the best.
Give me a good example of a strong world power that impliments anything that has anything to do with capitalism and I will believe you. Russia has fallen, Chian is essentially using capitalistic ideas, Cuba is a speed bump now that their big brother Russia is out of the running, North Korea can barely feed it's own people. Now I guess that leaves Vietnam and maybe some other isolated places. Please to some acurate political and intelligence forcasting and tell us again precisely how capitalism is inferior to foo and how and where foo is implimented.
Things are changing, here, and elsewhere. Be prepared.
Sounds like the hippies of a 20-30 years ago. Generally this will not happen. The average person does not agree with this statement. And what you are forgetting is that for any sort of massive change usually top officials and the military have to be behind it. Last I checked I think that military people like getting paid on a regular basis and the top officials were quite amiable towards capitalism because it pays them to like it.
p.s.: although it is probably pointless to argue with a brainwashed capitalist like yourself, advertising on Slashdot is tacky as hell.
No you know what's really getting tacks? It's thinking that the 60's are still alive and that other nations even using military force could easily topple the USA in the next 10 years at least. I suggest you look at the political analysis at stratfor under their predictions of the decade for the major political areas of the world or maybe take a look at Jane's Intelligence Review at your local library or get a subscription (yeah it's expensive but it will put all those little fears to rest that the US is going anywhere). These sources are quite unbiased and quite good reading.
What I am wondering is which country you are actually from and exactly what kind of things that they do there that make it a good place to live for the "average person" not just the governmetn or the rich how exploit the region.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Think about it. It's a great idea, it'd be wonderful it it went down that way, but I don't think that it has even the remotest possibility of happening, and I really don't think we want it to happen. There will always be people who wish to keep code proprietary, those who wish to keep code open source, and those who really don't care. There, also, will always be people who want free programs, those who want to pay for programs & support, and those who don't care. The thing is, this variety of people is what makes the Internet (and the world) what it is. We can't all become the same - that would be boring, provide no point, and eventually end up in the same situation as the former USSR: dead or at least severly divided. Differences are what makes humans human. We need to accept the differences we have and need, and not try to change others' views. There will always be people who do/think things differently than yourself. If the world can accept that, I think that would be a better solution by far than to force everyone to be the same.
Eruantalon
The Annals of Middle-earth
If we assume that the point of all of this technology is to make it easier to communicate with others, when are we going to adjust our focus from constantly improving the technology to actually using the technology?
Ease of communication is only part of the point. The real reason we continue to develope and extend our technology is because we can. Man is motivated by accomplishment and the continued thirst for knowledge. Innovation is personally satisfying. When you code that program, or route that network, or whatever you did today, didn't it feel good when you were done, like you accomplished something? If you have a idea, realize it. The further we go, the more we will learn, and the more questions we will have.
Here is my theory:
/forcing/ us to increase our number of connections. I think this is having the effect of making each connection less meaningful. Humans and communication and the relationships founded thereon are commoditized now - when's the last time you said something meaningful to the cashier or guy behind the counter?
/more/ isolating, and suffocating. You walk accross a street downtown and may see hundreds of people...but you know not one...they are just a few faces out of billions. It's sort of like being suffocated by oxygen (it can happen). There is so much that you are unable to make use of it. I also think it may be having an effect physically. Animals need space. We are imbued with a sense of our range and a sense of how much space, either physical or emotional, that we need. Increasing our interactions with other so much, I believe is creating a new emergent behavior. Everybody is too close, driving too slow, or talking too much or too loud.
I've always thought that the ideal human grouping is the "clan". For hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, man (and woman) developed and gravitated towards this grouping. A clan is small enough that everybody knows each other and can agree on mores, but not big enough that a separation needs to be made between the "people" and "government". I think the "clan" is the basic unit we still gravitate towards. Numbering hundreds and hundreds of thousands, there are still Geek clans, Musician clans, etc.
Technology has forever been enabling us to communicate more easily, and expand the horizons of the world we live in. Our realm of acquantaince is not a few square miles anymore...it is the whole globe. In a clan, the person to person connection is tight because there are a small number of people. Technology is enabling, and
We are all "guys behind the counter".
I think this is actually having the reverse effect of what we expect an increased ability for communications via technology would provide. We now have many many many more connections with people, but they are less and less meaningful. Pervasive communications I think is having the effect of being
I hope I am wrong...because it is sort of sad. One of the things I think illustrates this "pseudo-theory/feeling" of mine, is, for example, the music and cover art of Radiohead...coldly nihilistic, and nostalgiac. ("let down", "uptight", "lucky", "tourist", etc. on OK Computer, but also The Bends and Pablo Honey...)
I guess to sum it up...pervasive communications is commoditizing us...Marx predicted technology would commoditize us physically...I feel communications technology might be commoditizing us emotionally/spiritually/mentally.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?