I see and agree with your point that just because people believe something doesn't make it "right", but how DO you decide whether something is right or wrong? How do we uncover these "universal absolute moralities"?
Through pure logic? Pure mathematics? Mathematics is a man-made system of theorems based on a few unprovable axioms that happen to be useful, and in fact different sets of axioms can be set up and still be valid, so that doesn't help.
Through scientific inquiry? Science is based on observation and experimentation and not very applicable in the field of morality.
The Holocaust was wrong whether or not we won. Slavery was wrong whether or not we won.
What about the massive killings during the colonization of the Americas? I think that's just as bad, if not worse, than the Holocaust, and yet there are two separate camps with their own interesting arguments about whether or not it was a good thing. And yes, we won that "war".
Look, the only reason everyone thinks (as I certainly do) that killing the Jews was wrong is because the Nazis lost.
Arg. I realized that I forgot to mention that as soon as I hit "submit". Yes, I think that it would have been looked upon as less "evil" than it is now if the Nazis had won. I don't think you can make a direct parallel to the American Indians (I personally think that's a less offensive term than "Native Americans", btw; but that's a whole other discussion) because we live in different times.
But even with the Indians, there are plenty of people who look at it today and believe that it was a horrible thing to kill all those Indians. And there are also people who honestly believe that although it was bad, it brought about a net good. Who's right? I think it's more complicated than one or the other.
The winners define right and wrong in law, but there will always be dissenters and people with a different opinion from the mainstream.
Slavery was wrong, because we won.
Er.. What about all those people in the South who lost? I'm sure most of them today still think slavery is wrong.
It's not that simple. Most Germans today, although they lost the Second World War, probably think the Holocaust was a bad idea.
Throughout history the only things that have been almost always taboo was murder of your own kind and incest.
And murder of your own kind is incredibly flexible, usually... All you have to do is redefine "own kind".. I mean, we talk about murder being an absolute moral all the time, but we most of us condone wars in certain circumstances and many of us condone the death penalty. How much more "own kind" can you get than a family member... but then many of us would condone the death penalty on a family member if they killed someone else.
I can't agree with that. I'm personally quite a pacifist and would rather as few people get killed as possible, but even I believe it's sometimes necessary. For instance, think of all the German soldiers we killed during WWII. I assure you not all of them were pure evil. I'm sure a lot of people of people think that it was justified. I'm sure that other people (pure pacifists) think that it was utterly UNjustified to kill all these Germans even though they were attacking.
If there is absolute morality, then where is the line drawn? Who draws it? The Bible? The Bible quite clearly says, "Thou shalt not kill." It doesn't say, "unless thou art defending thyself."
In short, when it comes to this sort of thing, there is no absolute authority on right and wrong.
The thing is, if the Nazis believed killing Jews was the right thing to do, that was their perogative.. BUT almost everyone else on the planet thinks it's wrong, and the Nazis also had an obligation to work things out with the rest of the world.
Sagan made various technical contributions here and there just like any other astrophysicist, but what made him special was his communication of science to the masses. Scientific education is sorely lacking in this country, and inspiring the general population to support science is just as important as particular research projects.
After all, we only learned a little bit more about geology through the moon landing, but how much more support did the scientific community get because of that?
I don't think we should belittle Sagan's mastery of communication and say that it's not a "real" contribution to science.
No. Apple has the right to make transluscent computuers with integrated monitors that look like the iMac.
That is NOT the only posible design or color arrangement you can choose for a computer. Now, I'm not so sure about this eOne since it does look somewhat different, but the Daewoo/FuturePower machine looked just like it and should have been sued.
I was also rather disappointed by the fact that 90% of the article really just dealt with passwords/keys, which really is not the point at all.
BUT, one point IS valid, and I've seen few people mention it: Time-limited use of STO can still succeed in some cases. If the current implementation of security is only going to exist for a short period of time before being replaced, it could be sufficient, because it takes time to crack the system and find the hole. As long as you know that the odds of finding the hole before you replace the security system is very small, time-limited STO can be a reasonable compromise between efficiency and security.
Thus, STO can be a valid TEMPORARY security measure.
The danger, of course, is in growing complacent and deciding that the STO is secure just because no one is breaking into it, and leaving it in place for too long.
I haven't managed to find any info anywhere about the hardware of crack.linuxppc.org. I mean, if it's going to be a prize, we should know what we're getting, no?
I've heard (and can think of myself) plenty of arguments why SDMI will fail.
But are there any good articles that can even go half-way toward convincing me that it'll succeed? Even the most convincing argument I've seen-- Record companies can release their music only in SDMI format-- isn't really feasible because of the huge installed base of CDs.
The only way I see this succeeding is having it be part of DVD-Audio, but that's very far off from widespread adoption.
Palmtops can already have the processing power to support MP3 playback, and if flash RAM starts getting cheap enough, I can imagine palmtops capable of running "PalmAmp" or something. (Stop me if this is already available.)
And these things would be pretty much computers, so if the RIAA sues them, they'd have to sue the whole computer industry for MP3 playback, no?
I think that would certainly make things interesting.
Building a hardware java machine isn't necessarily a monopoly just because Sun is doing it. If Sun doesn't allow anyone ELSE to do it.. THEN that'd be a monopoly.
But that was written before widespread mailorder was a concept. Time change and so should laws.
That said, I think it's more reasonable to set up a system where state sales taxes can be levied on mail order goods than for there to be an indiscriminate federal tax.
I think AOL is clearly in the right to protect its servers from traffic that doesn't make it money (via advertising).
But I also think it'd be nice if we DID have an open, inter-operable IMing standard with distributed load.
So my question is: How do we do this? I'm not very familiar with IRC other than to say that I find it far too difficult to use. Would it be possible to set up a distributed load system for instant messaging? What would it involve? I'm not too familiar with the details of this sort of thing and would be interested in hearing about it.
You're mistaken. You do NOT have to use AOL to use AIM. AIM is completely free and independent of AOL. Try installing the latest version of Netscape.. it comes with a copy of AIM. You get a free AIM-only account by signing up on the web.
All AIM does for AOL is advertising (both of AOL itself and of AOL's advertisers).
I actually see the EXACT OPPOSITE. Nowadays, I don't really buy one-hit wonders, but I DO buy concept albums or just generally good albums. Why? Because such albums are often a good mix of music that sounds good together. Maybe what you say could be true for the long term, but in the short term, I see MORE concept albums being created because those are the ones that people who use online music will actually be willing to buy.
This may sound racist, but I assure you I am not. But I do think there are CULTURAL differences that tend to lie on racial lines. One major cultural difference I see is the emphasis different cultures place on education. Why is it that so many Asians tend to do well in school? I assure you it is NOT because we're smarter.. which we're not. It's because of the (over)emphasis on education in Asian culture. Take a trip to any far east country some time. From richest to poorest, nearly everyone there puts tons and tons of emphasis on education. In fact, I think it goes too far, and children are far too overstressed.
Here in the US, I think it is very possible that cultural values.. specifically insufficient emphasis on education, is a contributing factor to the statistically poor educational performance of blacks and latinos. I mean, I know some very academically successful black and latino people (again, the best way to destroy a stereotype is to have someone as a friend) who for some reason had decided as children to put a great deal of effort into education. I also have some bright childhood black friends who ended up in gangs and other such crowds and stopped doing well at school.
Among poor people in the Asian population, there are far more people who fall into the former category.. people who decide that since they are poor, they'd try to do better through education. And I think this is in large part due to their parents' emphasis on education.
Notice I've never said money isn't a factor. I do definitely believe it's easier to do better in school if you're NOT poor.. since you don't have to have an afterschool job, try to support your parents instead of go to college, etc. But more Asian poor people do well academically than black and Latino poor people, and I think it's cultural, not genetic. I see no other explanation for that.
So again, it comes down in large part to parental support.
I don't dis Microsoft for being unoriginal.. I dis it for making crappy software. Regardless of what the $1M Xerox deal entailed, the fact of the matter is that Apple improved significantly on PARC's software, and has always continued (except recently, when it's just trying to survive) to innovate. If Microsoft stole the MacOS and then proceeded to make it even better into a wonderful product, I would not be complaining. The problem is that they took a few ideas, then made a crappy product that they sell primarily through politics and market-manipulation.. NOT through being a better product.
That, I should add, is NOT what capitalism is about. Capitalism is about achieving through making a better product. Microsoft, in most cases, does not do this.
The money Bill gives to charity is not the issue here. The issue is whether Microsoft is forwarding the cause of good software. It isn't.
I still really like Asimov's The Gods Themselves, but yeah.. That's exactly what I meant by the book having great stuff about consciousness. It's just so interesting to think about how these aliens think.
I should also mention that I'm pleasantly surprised someone here has actually read the book besides me. Gotta love the/. community!:)
I fully agree that Leo has talent and can be a decent actor. The problem I see is with image. You think the "sell-out" cries about TPM have been strong? Just imagine the cries about Leo.
I also really dread seeing a Star Wars movie being a chick-flick. But aside from that, this might actually make people have really low expectations to begin with for a change...
I totally agree. I think Star Trek is great in that it has gotten many non-s.f. fans into s.f., but Star Trek is really light science fiction in that the science is really really crummy 99% of the time. I don't mind it that much. I think TNG was quite good and even liked TOS. (Haven't watched DS9 or Voyager to pass a valid judgment.) But I think the best Treks are the ones with interesting storylines.. The technobabble is really annoying.
And this is precisely why I love Star Wars, which doesn't even bother making an effort to explain things (which is why I HATE the midichlorians (not a spoiler since if you haven't seen it, you won't know what I'm talking about)).
I think Star Wars is great because it focuses on the non-technical aspects, like story, scale and wonder, and general coolness.:)
On the other hand, I also love harder s.f., like Contact or Blade Runner, that actually try to really deal with moral implications of technical issues with a better attempt at being realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
I see and agree with your point that just because people believe something doesn't make it "right", but how DO you decide whether something is right or wrong? How do we uncover these "universal absolute moralities"?
Through pure logic? Pure mathematics? Mathematics is a man-made system of theorems based on a few unprovable axioms that happen to be useful, and in fact different sets of axioms can be set up and still be valid, so that doesn't help.
Through scientific inquiry? Science is based on observation and experimentation and not very applicable in the field of morality.
The Holocaust was wrong whether or not we won. Slavery was wrong whether or not we won.
What about the massive killings during the colonization of the Americas? I think that's just as bad, if not worse, than the Holocaust, and yet there are two separate camps with their own interesting arguments about whether or not it was a good thing. And yes, we won that "war".
Look, the only reason everyone thinks (as I certainly do) that killing the Jews was wrong is because the Nazis lost.
Arg. I realized that I forgot to mention that as soon as I hit "submit". Yes, I think that it would have been looked upon as less "evil" than it is now if the Nazis had won. I don't think you can make a direct parallel to the American Indians (I personally think that's a less offensive term than "Native Americans", btw; but that's a whole other discussion) because we live in different times.
But even with the Indians, there are plenty of people who look at it today and believe that it was a horrible thing to kill all those Indians. And there are also people who honestly believe that although it was bad, it brought about a net good. Who's right? I think it's more complicated than one or the other.
The winners define right and wrong in law, but there will always be dissenters and people with a different opinion from the mainstream.
Slavery was wrong, because we won.
Er.. What about all those people in the South who lost? I'm sure most of them today still think slavery is wrong.
It's not that simple. Most Germans today, although they lost the Second World War, probably think the Holocaust was a bad idea.
No, a real hacker uses "cat >" ...
Throughout history the only things that have been almost always taboo was murder of your own kind and incest.
And murder of your own kind is incredibly flexible, usually... All you have to do is redefine "own kind".. I mean, we talk about murder being an absolute moral all the time, but we most of us condone wars in certain circumstances and many of us condone the death penalty. How much more "own kind" can you get than a family member... but then many of us would condone the death penalty on a family member if they killed someone else.
I can't agree with that.
I'm personally quite a pacifist and would rather as few people get killed as possible, but even I believe it's sometimes necessary. For instance, think of all the German soldiers we killed during WWII. I assure you not all of them were pure evil. I'm sure a lot of people of people think that it was justified. I'm sure that other people (pure pacifists) think that it was utterly UNjustified to kill all these Germans even though they were attacking.
If there is absolute morality, then where is the line drawn? Who draws it? The Bible? The Bible quite clearly says, "Thou shalt not kill." It doesn't say, "unless thou art defending thyself."
In short, when it comes to this sort of thing, there is no absolute authority on right and wrong.
The thing is, if the Nazis believed killing Jews was the right thing to do, that was their perogative.. BUT almost everyone else on the planet thinks it's wrong, and the Nazis also had an obligation to work things out with the rest of the world.
Sagan made various technical contributions here and there just like any other astrophysicist, but what made him special was his communication of science to the masses. Scientific education is sorely lacking in this country, and inspiring the general population to support science is just as important as particular research projects.
After all, we only learned a little bit more about geology through the moon landing, but how much more support did the scientific community get because of that?
I don't think we should belittle Sagan's mastery of communication and say that it's not a "real" contribution to science.
No. Apple has the right to make transluscent computuers with integrated monitors that look like the iMac.
That is NOT the only posible design or color arrangement you can choose for a computer. Now, I'm not so sure about this eOne since it does look somewhat different, but the Daewoo/FuturePower machine looked just like it and should have been sued.
I was also rather disappointed by the fact that 90% of the article really just dealt with passwords/keys, which really is not the point at all.
BUT, one point IS valid, and I've seen few people mention it:
Time-limited use of STO can still succeed in some cases. If the current implementation of security is only going to exist for a short period of time before being replaced, it could be sufficient, because it takes time to crack the system and find the hole.
As long as you know that the odds of finding the hole before you replace the security system is very small, time-limited STO can be a reasonable compromise between efficiency and security.
Thus, STO can be a valid TEMPORARY security measure.
The danger, of course, is in growing complacent and deciding that the STO is secure just because no one is breaking into it, and leaving it in place for too long.
I haven't managed to find any info anywhere about the hardware of crack.linuxppc.org.
I mean, if it's going to be a prize, we should know what we're getting, no?
I've heard (and can think of myself) plenty of arguments why SDMI will fail.
But are there any good articles that can even go half-way toward convincing me that it'll succeed?
Even the most convincing argument I've seen-- Record companies can release their music only in SDMI format-- isn't really feasible because of the huge installed base of CDs.
The only way I see this succeeding is having it be part of DVD-Audio, but that's very far off from widespread adoption.
Palmtops can already have the processing power to support MP3 playback, and if flash RAM starts getting cheap enough, I can imagine palmtops capable of running "PalmAmp" or something. (Stop me if this is already available.)
And these things would be pretty much computers, so if the RIAA sues them, they'd have to sue the whole computer industry for MP3 playback, no?
I think that would certainly make things interesting.
Building a hardware java machine isn't necessarily a monopoly just because Sun is doing it. If Sun doesn't allow anyone ELSE to do it.. THEN that'd be a monopoly.
But that was written before widespread mailorder was a concept. Time change and so should laws.
That said, I think it's more reasonable to set up a system where state sales taxes can be levied on mail order goods than for there to be an indiscriminate federal tax.
I think AOL is clearly in the right to protect its servers from traffic that doesn't make it money (via advertising).
But I also think it'd be nice if we DID have an open, inter-operable IMing standard with distributed load.
So my question is: How do we do this? I'm not very familiar with IRC other than to say that I find it far too difficult to use. Would it be possible to set up a distributed load system for instant messaging? What would it involve?
I'm not too familiar with the details of this sort of thing and would be interested in hearing about it.
You're mistaken.
You do NOT have to use AOL to use AIM.
AIM is completely free and independent of AOL.
Try installing the latest version of Netscape.. it comes with a copy of AIM.
You get a free AIM-only account by signing up on the web.
All AIM does for AOL is advertising (both of AOL itself and of AOL's advertisers).
I actually see the EXACT OPPOSITE.
Nowadays, I don't really buy one-hit wonders, but I DO buy concept albums or just generally good albums.
Why? Because such albums are often a good mix of music that sounds good together.
Maybe what you say could be true for the long term, but in the short term, I see MORE concept albums being created because those are the ones that people who use online music will actually be willing to buy.
This may sound racist, but I assure you I am not. But I do think there are CULTURAL differences that tend to lie on racial lines.
One major cultural difference I see is the emphasis different cultures place on education. Why is it that so many Asians tend to do well in school? I assure you it is NOT because we're smarter.. which we're not. It's because of the (over)emphasis on education in Asian culture.
Take a trip to any far east country some time. From richest to poorest, nearly everyone there puts tons and tons of emphasis on education. In fact, I think it goes too far, and children are far too overstressed.
Here in the US, I think it is very possible that cultural values.. specifically insufficient emphasis on education, is a contributing factor to the statistically poor educational performance of blacks and latinos. I mean, I know some very academically successful black and latino people (again, the best way to destroy a stereotype is to have someone as a friend) who for some reason had decided as children to put a great deal of effort into education. I also have some bright childhood black friends who ended up in gangs and other such crowds and stopped doing well at school.
Among poor people in the Asian population, there are far more people who fall into the former category.. people who decide that since they are poor, they'd try to do better through education. And I think this is in large part due to their parents' emphasis on education.
Notice I've never said money isn't a factor. I do definitely believe it's easier to do better in school if you're NOT poor.. since you don't have to have an afterschool job, try to support your parents instead of go to college, etc. But more Asian poor people do well academically than black and Latino poor people, and I think it's cultural, not genetic. I see no other explanation for that.
So again, it comes down in large part to parental support.
>they aren't allocated to people, just devices.
What's the difference?
http://archive.dstc.edu.au/~bill/carli n.html
I don't dis Microsoft for being unoriginal.. I dis it for making crappy software. Regardless of what the $1M Xerox deal entailed, the fact of the matter is that Apple improved significantly on PARC's software, and has always continued (except recently, when it's just trying to survive) to innovate.
If Microsoft stole the MacOS and then proceeded to make it even better into a wonderful product, I would not be complaining. The problem is that they took a few ideas, then made a crappy product that they sell primarily through politics and market-manipulation.. NOT through being a better product.
That, I should add, is NOT what capitalism is about. Capitalism is about achieving through making a better product. Microsoft, in most cases, does not do this.
The money Bill gives to charity is not the issue here. The issue is whether Microsoft is forwarding the cause of good software. It isn't.
And the best damn aliens ever
/. community! :)
I still really like Asimov's The Gods Themselves, but yeah.. That's exactly what I meant by the book having great stuff about consciousness. It's just so interesting to think about how these aliens think.
I should also mention that I'm pleasantly surprised someone here has actually read the book besides me. Gotta love the
To quote a joke I once heard..
I was waiting to see his lightsaber with "BAD MOTHERFUCKER" etched on the handle...
:)
Someone should make that; I bet it would sell.
I fully agree that Leo has talent and can be a decent actor.
The problem I see is with image. You think the "sell-out" cries about TPM have been strong? Just imagine the cries about Leo.
I also really dread seeing a Star Wars movie being a chick-flick.
But aside from that, this might actually make people have really low expectations to begin with for a change...
I totally agree. I think Star Trek is great in that it has gotten many non-s.f. fans into s.f., but Star Trek is really light science fiction in that the science is really really crummy 99% of the time.
:)
I don't mind it that much. I think TNG was quite good and even liked TOS. (Haven't watched DS9 or Voyager to pass a valid judgment.)
But I think the best Treks are the ones with interesting storylines.. The technobabble is really annoying.
And this is precisely why I love Star Wars, which doesn't even bother making an effort to explain things (which is why I HATE the midichlorians (not a spoiler since if you haven't seen it, you won't know what I'm talking about)).
I think Star Wars is great because it focuses on the non-technical aspects, like story, scale and wonder, and general coolness.
On the other hand, I also love harder s.f., like Contact or Blade Runner, that actually try to really deal with moral implications of technical issues with a better attempt at being realistic.
This reminds me of Vernor Vinge's Fire Upon the Deep, which is about an interstellar society with the network structure of the early internet...
There are massive "archives" and hubs which sell bandwidth.
Really cool book about the nature of consciousness and stuff.