they have a CULTURE in which it's seen as acceptable to be a total prick online
I'd love to see the bullshit you come up with to support that statement. The difference isn't cultural, and contrary to what you say, the tacit laws of the Korean culture, as do those of many other cultures, forbid such behavior. The "real difference," as you put it, is in the age groups that play online games.
As a Korean, I can tell you that one of the first things that kids learn how to do in Korea is to play computer games. Their means of recreation have become so limited that playing computer games in the shelter of their rooms is one of the few things they can do without fearing punishment from various authorities. In addition, the "8 to 5" workday is still only a dream in Korea. Employers expect employees to stay as long as it takes to finish the work, and often, there are social obligations with co-workers even after the workday is over (it's very common for the employees to gather as a group and drink their way from bar to bar, daily after work, until well past midnight). In other words, adults are simply too busy to be playing online games.
As such, most Korean online gamers fall into the narrow 12-18 age group, in contrast to American online gamers who vary in age from low teens to late thirties. I agree that the "we're socially repressed" defense doesn't hold; it's plain immaturity. Don't stereotype the whole lot of us as ill-mannered jerks based on your online experiences with immature teenagers. I could just as easily spend time at a trailer park and claim that American culture supports inbreeding and the procreation of bastard children.
The "ancient nomads" had abundance because of a lack of population, not a lack of technology.
The lower population count, and therefore the abundance of resources, was precisely due to the lack of technology. There were no organ transplants and advanced medical technology to help the sick or the impaired. Mass production of food didn't exist. People lived from day to day, letting nature judge who lived and who died. Those who managed to stay around enjoyed an abundance of resources as a result. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we give up every technological advancement we've made thus far and live in caves wearing loin cloths. Considering my clumsiness and impaired vision, I would probably be the first to go when nature takes full control. My point in this post, as in the parent post, is that advancements in technology haven't made our lives any better. Nor have they made our lives any worse. Tradeoffs are what it's about, and I certainly appreciate much of the technology we have today to the degree that I wouldn't give them up for the life of a nomad.
It's a common misconception that ancient peoples had some sort of "nobility" because of a lack of technology. There is no nobility in ignorance. Technology is simply a byproduct of knowledge. Furthermore, it is even more common for people to get defensive and to ridicule the lives of "modern people" without knowledge of any facts when someone points out a negative impact of ignorant primitives.
If you can show me where I tied nobility with the life of ancient peoples or where I ridiculed the modern way of life or even implied that it is inferior to the way of life of the nomads in my original post, I would be glad to retract such a statement.
As for woody's post: when I say ancient nomads, I mean the people that existed in the time before society as we know it today began developing in the form of agrarian societies in the Middle East. And yes, I have done some research on the subject, including reading the various works of the author Daniel Quinn. When I said that I haven't read enough about the topic to say with certainty, I meant that I didn't have statistics to dish out.
Ah, for the good old days when we all hunted and gathered (and sometimes starved and died) together!
The ancient nomads had much more leisurely lives than us. They worked something like 5 hours a day, and only 3 days a week at that. I haven't read enough about this to say with certainty, but I'm willing to bet that the number of hunter-gatherers that starved to death doesn't even compare to the number of poor and homeless that starve to death in our society. It's a common misconception to think that we lead better or more leasurely lives because we have new machines and new technology. Furthermore, it is even more common for people to get defensive and to ridicule the lives of the "cavemen" without knowledge of any facts when someone points out a negative impact of technology. Roblimo demonstrated this very well.
I remember them saying in a slashdot interview that they were going to implement a new system of keeping packages in stable release up to date with the release of potato (question #5 in that interview). Does anyone know what the status on that project is?
Oh well. I got all excited for nothing. Debian is a great distro, if it takes time to put things together then that's perfectly understandable and I'm willing to wait. But then, maybe not. When slink entered freeze and I bought the CD, it came with all the latest and coolest stuff. But as the months went by, it got old very quickly. And guess what? No more updates for slink unless it's related to security. They kept up with gnome-1.0 for a while, but only for a while. I'm still stuck with mutt 0.94, so I can't use the new PGP6 I downloaded. I would compile programs myself and make install them, but if I do that, what's the point of having a great packaging system like Debian's? Let's say I compiled mutt 1.0 on hamm and linked to libc5. When it's time for an upgrade to slink, apt-get dist-upgrade won't even know mutt 1.0 is installed, and won't upgrade it to the glibc2 version. Now I can't install the newer mutt that comes with slink, unless I trace through the steps of make install and delete the current mutt files that were scattered into/usr/local. Imagine doing this for some 15 to 20 programs. Debian developers should come up with a way to keep packages updated in the frozen releases. Perhaps just the current stable release, as it would take too much time to keep things updated on all the past releases. Debian is already a great distribution. This addition would make it the ideal distribution, and I won't have to envy those RedHat users that always get the latest packages. Just my two cents.
I disagree. One of the biggest factors that make or break an operating system is hardware support. When Microsoft is twisting the arms of hardware companies to prevent them from writing hardware drivers for alternative operating systems such as Linux or OS/2 or BeOS, or even to prevent them from releasing specs to people who want to write drivers at no cost for the benefit of the public, other operating systems simply can't compete. Put yourself in this position. You want to try a new OS, one known to be stable and fast, but your video card or your DVD drive or something along those lines won't work under that OS. After you tried the OS, would you stick with it if you had to constantly boot into Windows to play Quake 2 or do CAD work? Most don't. Those of us that do, mainly Linux or OS/2 or (your favorite OS here) devotees, have to put up with hardware support issues because of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. As for super-gluing IE to every copy of Windows: if that doesn't show Microsoft is abusing its monopoly, I don't know what else does. Was IE really superior to Netscape Navigator? Netscape 3.x was far better than IE 3.x. The same can't be said for 4.x versions of the two browsers, as Netscape could no longer compete with a giant company giving out free copies of its browser and was practically driven to bankruptcy. If you're still not convinced that government intervention is required, then open your ears and listen to the people around you. Not just to the Linux zealots, but also to current Windows users. How many of them are satisfied with the operating system that crashes as much as 3 or 4 times a day? Furthermore, how many of them are satisfied with the operating system at the cost of $200, plus some $90 for bugfixes and minor improvements (Read: Win98)?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to see the bullshit you come up with to support that statement. The difference isn't cultural, and contrary to what you say, the tacit laws of the Korean culture, as do those of many other cultures, forbid such behavior. The "real difference," as you put it, is in the age groups that play online games.
As a Korean, I can tell you that one of the first things that kids learn how to do in Korea is to play computer games. Their means of recreation have become so limited that playing computer games in the shelter of their rooms is one of the few things they can do without fearing punishment from various authorities. In addition, the "8 to 5" workday is still only a dream in Korea. Employers expect employees to stay as long as it takes to finish the work, and often, there are social obligations with co-workers even after the workday is over (it's very common for the employees to gather as a group and drink their way from bar to bar, daily after work, until well past midnight). In other words, adults are simply too busy to be playing online games.
As such, most Korean online gamers fall into the narrow 12-18 age group, in contrast to American online gamers who vary in age from low teens to late thirties. I agree that the "we're socially repressed" defense doesn't hold; it's plain immaturity. Don't stereotype the whole lot of us as ill-mannered jerks based on your online experiences with immature teenagers. I could just as easily spend time at a trailer park and claim that American culture supports inbreeding and the procreation of bastard children.
The correct link to DNA Lounge.
The "ancient nomads" had abundance because of a lack of population, not a lack of technology.
The lower population count, and therefore the abundance of resources, was precisely due to the lack of technology. There were no organ transplants and advanced medical technology to help the sick or the impaired. Mass production of food didn't exist. People lived from day to day, letting nature judge who lived and who died. Those who managed to stay around enjoyed an abundance of resources as a result. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we give up every technological advancement we've made thus far and live in caves wearing loin cloths. Considering my clumsiness and impaired vision, I would probably be the first to go when nature takes full control. My point in this post, as in the parent post, is that advancements in technology haven't made our lives any better. Nor have they made our lives any worse. Tradeoffs are what it's about, and I certainly appreciate much of the technology we have today to the degree that I wouldn't give them up for the life of a nomad.
It's a common misconception that ancient peoples had some sort of "nobility" because of a lack of technology. There is no nobility in ignorance. Technology is simply a byproduct of knowledge. Furthermore, it is even more common for people to get defensive and to ridicule the lives of "modern people" without knowledge of any facts when someone points out a negative impact of ignorant primitives.
If you can show me where I tied nobility with the life of ancient peoples or where I ridiculed the modern way of life or even implied that it is inferior to the way of life of the nomads in my original post, I would be glad to retract such a statement.
As for woody's post: when I say ancient nomads, I mean the people that existed in the time before society as we know it today began developing in the form of agrarian societies in the Middle East. And yes, I have done some research on the subject, including reading the various works of the author Daniel Quinn. When I said that I haven't read enough about the topic to say with certainty, I meant that I didn't have statistics to dish out.
Ah, for the good old days when we all hunted and gathered (and sometimes starved and died) together!
The ancient nomads had much more leisurely lives than us. They worked something like 5 hours a day, and only 3 days a week at that. I haven't read enough about this to say with certainty, but I'm willing to bet that the number of hunter-gatherers that starved to death doesn't even compare to the number of poor and homeless that starve to death in our society. It's a common misconception to think that we lead better or more leasurely lives because we have new machines and new technology. Furthermore, it is even more common for people to get defensive and to ridicule the lives of the "cavemen" without knowledge of any facts when someone points out a negative impact of technology. Roblimo demonstrated this very well.
I remember them saying in a slashdot interview that they were going to implement a new system of keeping packages in stable release up to date with the release of potato (question #5 in that interview). Does anyone know what the status on that project is?
Oh well. I got all excited for nothing. Debian is a great distro, if it takes time to put things together then that's perfectly understandable and I'm willing to wait. But then, maybe not. When slink entered freeze and I bought the CD, it came with all the latest and coolest stuff. But as the months went by, it got old very quickly. And guess what? No more updates for slink unless it's related to security. They kept up with gnome-1.0 for a while, but only for a while. I'm still stuck with mutt 0.94, so I can't use the new PGP6 I downloaded. I would compile programs myself and make install them, but if I do that, what's the point of having a great packaging system like Debian's? Let's say I compiled mutt 1.0 on hamm and linked to libc5. When it's time for an upgrade to slink, apt-get dist-upgrade won't even know mutt 1.0 is installed, and won't upgrade it to the glibc2 version. Now I can't install the newer mutt that comes with slink, unless I trace through the steps of make install and delete the current mutt files that were scattered into /usr/local. Imagine doing this for some 15 to 20 programs. Debian developers should come up with a way to keep packages updated in the frozen releases. Perhaps just the current stable release, as it would take too much time to keep things updated on all the past releases. Debian is already a great distribution. This addition would make it the ideal distribution, and I won't have to envy those RedHat users that always get the latest packages. Just my two cents.
I disagree. One of the biggest factors that make or break an operating system is hardware support. When Microsoft is twisting the arms of hardware companies to prevent them from writing hardware drivers for alternative operating systems such as Linux or OS/2 or BeOS, or even to prevent them from releasing specs to people who want to write drivers at no cost for the benefit of the public, other operating systems simply can't compete. Put yourself in this position. You want to try a new OS, one known to be stable and fast, but your video card or your DVD drive or something along those lines won't work under that OS. After you tried the OS, would you stick with it if you had to constantly boot into Windows to play Quake 2 or do CAD work? Most don't. Those of us that do, mainly Linux or OS/2 or (your favorite OS here) devotees, have to put up with hardware support issues because of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. As for super-gluing IE to every copy of Windows: if that doesn't show Microsoft is abusing its monopoly, I don't know what else does. Was IE really superior to Netscape Navigator? Netscape 3.x was far better than IE 3.x. The same can't be said for 4.x versions of the two browsers, as Netscape could no longer compete with a giant company giving out free copies of its browser and was practically driven to bankruptcy. If you're still not convinced that government intervention is required, then open your ears and listen to the people around you. Not just to the Linux zealots, but also to current Windows users. How many of them are satisfied with the operating system that crashes as much as 3 or 4 times a day? Furthermore, how many of them are satisfied with the operating system at the cost of $200, plus some $90 for bugfixes and minor improvements (Read: Win98)?