I don't remember what we were talking about, but with the amount of time I've spent here, I'm feeling like it's getting a bit too likely that I'm going to be kidnapped by a cyber-predator.
I'm sure you all think you're very funny, but this is a serious problem. You shouldn't joke about it, even if Lindsay Lohan just bought a new house in Beverly Hills.
Personal computers are now fast enough that we can add yet another layer of abstraction between the hardware and the applications.
I have a hunch this will succeed, because it will target web developers looking for the easiest way to make web pages "fancier." There's a huge market for this. 90% of the people you make web pages for will have no comments at all except, "Can you make the logo fade in and fly around like on www.ultrashitty.com?"
So about 20 years from now, we'll be developing applications for the Silverlight platform which will have changed names ten times by then, and it will support the Big 3 OS's which have become entrenched and have nearly identical functionality. Someone will have come along and copied an old idea to produce a new OS which is slightly better than the Big 3, but will be fighting an uphill battle because it's not Silverlight compatible.
At that point, people will realize that computers are fast enough to run a layer on top of Silverlight that's also compatible with Platinumlight, the Silverlight copy that's nearly ready for the new OS. A company will produce that, sell to Microsoft, and the cycle will continue with the Big 4 OS's.
Excuse me for replying to myself, but let me clarify. By "religion," I don't mean Christianity, The Bible, Koran, etc. Those certainly contain things that can be disproven and you shouldn't believe to be fact.
Religion in the context I used it was meant to be "ideas about the world that can't be proven scientifically." The existence of God would be one of those ideas. A flat or round earth would not.
All world religions seem to attempt to provide an explanation for God that people may find acceptable and take on faith. As far as that goes, I think they're beyond reproach.
Where religions go wrong is that they start using God as an excuse to proscribe how you should live. I think that's where a lot of the conflict occurs.
What is the difference between you believing that you're a normal, functioning person and what people in psych wards believe?
For all you know, you're sitting in a psych ward imagining this post.
You have to take some things on faith in order to function as a human being. I fail to see why one should think that people's choice to believe in God is any less valid than you believing you're not in a mental institution, or that the world actually exists beyond your own perception.
Religion and faith are not about proof. It's a choice you make, and since the basis of the choice you make can never be proven one way or the other, it's completely up to you.
Would you rather live in a world that has meaning and purpose, and a moral absolute, or would you rather live in a world where nothing you does ever matters and the only purpose of existence is for you to feel good about yourself enough to continue to procreate?
That's the question, and there's no right answer. We can never prove that there's a right answer one way or the other. But there are a substantial number of people who would rather live in the world that has meaning and purpose, hence religion.
It doesn't matter what religion, when it comes down to it, that's what they're all pretty much about.
I'm not trying to make some libertarian point. I think that like a sibling post said, that given enough latitude companies will take on roles traditionally associated with governments.
But I do think that an economy is so diverse and complex so as to almost rule out the possibility of one company taking over an entire industry long-term without the force of law behind them. I'm always interested to hear about counter-examples in history, as I've found none.
"It's worth remembering that truly free markets are truly unstable and lead to monopoly"
Can you give us an example of a monopoly that has existed without government support?
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely curious, because I know of none.
And by government support, I mean nothing. Microsoft would not exist without strict copyright laws and such, as would be the case in a truly free market.
I've had a professor that makes great use of his tablet, mostly because the notes are already written when he gets there, and if someone has a question he can write more on the fly.
This is at a post-grad level. I think high school math would benefit from animated examples.
I wouldn't go too far into the technology aspect, though. Pencil and paper are the tools to learn math.
The best math class I had was where the prof used contraptions he made out of springs and plywood to demonstrate differential equations.
Here is a 60's generation music mogul (and he's spiritual, too!) who thinks all the world needs is another Bob Dylan or Beatles, and that with enough tweaking, the latest Metallica album can be just that and win over the entire youth market.
Here's a message to the 60's generation: your music and cultural heroes are not as great as you think they are, and nobody today is buying it. The media fawns over them and you because they ARE you. But nobody in my generation cares, anymore than you care about the greatness of Glenn Miller.
If I had to guess, I'd say people are sick to death of all of the amateur 60's era political and cultural revolution shit that we get bombarded with every day.
Bands don't need to be revolutionary, or make a statement, or turn the world on its head, or be the "voice of a generation." They just have to sound good.
None of the shit you put out today sounds good. The Dixie Chicks suck, because I can't just read about their latest album or enjoy their music without being bombarded with propaganda. Take your 60's BS and go home, we'd all be a lot better off.
Exactly. This is the implicit assumption that the pope makes, and even a cursory examination of what governments do with tax money would make it obvious that it would be far better off in somebody else's hands.
That the Catholic Church seems to subscribe to this leftist fantasy that government is a completely moral entity that will solve all the worlds problems given enough money doesn't surprise me. But the Pope is completely wrong.
How could an organization that criticizes the war in Iraq turn around and criticize private organizations for not voluntarily contributing money to fund it? They're not doing anything illegal, and from any moral standpoint, they're doing good.
I'd love to join all you free people up in New Hampshire, but it's just so damn cold. Couldn't you all have picked a more temperate free state? Sure, it'd be a bit more work to change the motto on the license plate, but you'd have more than two seasons.
I could go be a libertarian in Antarctica too, but no thanks.
To the contrary, libertarians understand that an economy is so hopelessly complex that most attempts to regulate or "fix" it will inevitably fail due to unforeseen and unintended consequences.
Google for Walter Williams to read what a libertarian economist thinks. He'd be the last person to say that an economy is simple.
The way I see it, it takes nearly no effort at all to contribute the changes back to the BSD camp that provided you with the base for the code. All else being equal, that seems to be the ethical thing to do.
It takes more effort to change the licensing in such a way that the BSD camp can't use the code. So it's kind of a slap in the face. I think that's where the animosity comes from, especially since the GPL camp proclaims to be all about freedom and sharing.
"Just so long as these new-fangled Libertarian's don't bitch and moan (or shoot up their school/workplace) when someone "does on to them" first."
This is the most common and insidious misunderstanding of what Libertarianism is.
The idea is not that society should become a free-for-all with people stabbing each other in the back simply because there is no law against it. Allow me to share a story about the U.S. military that will perfectly illustrate why I'm a libertarian.
I attended one of the U.S. Service academies. These places only accept the "best and brightest," not just academically, but really outstanding candidates who were tops in high school classes as well as being varsity athletes, community volunteers, etc. You'd be hard pressed to find a more self-motivated and responsible group of people in one place.
Over the four years I was there, I witnessed as a ridiculously strict set of rules and rigid enforcement of the letter-of-the-law turned this outstanding group of people into a bunch of cynical, irresponsible, lazy, backstabbing children. Admittedly, part of that is probably the due to nature of college-age people, but this went far beyond that.
I can honestly say that the only people who graduated better off than they were in high school (other than having the academic experience) were those who rejected the entire system and played by the rules just enough to not get into trouble, and relied on their own sense of right and wrong to get by.
Maybe that's the whole point of the place. If it is, it's not by design.
But anyway, the lesson I learned is that no system of rules and laws is capable of positively shaping a culture. In fact, from what I observed, very strict rules were like crack for unthinking people who would never develop their own moral code. It's much easier to act legally than it is to act ethically, because ethical action requires a lot of thought and reflection.
But for a system to work over the long term, people have to act ethically. John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I think a strict set of laws fosters irresponsibility. It's counter-productive.
I could submit nonsense on a variety of obscure topics, with low odds that anybody will find and correct them, thereby building up a great reputation. I wonder if their system accounts for that.
This is starting to sound like Karma for wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't remember what we were talking about, but with the amount of time I've spent here, I'm feeling like it's getting a bit too likely that I'm going to be kidnapped by a cyber-predator.
And Oprah's coming on. Adios.
I'm sure you all think you're very funny, but this is a serious problem. You shouldn't joke about it, even if Lindsay Lohan just bought a new house in Beverly Hills.
Wanna see a hilarious example of this? Check out this site.
They obviously couldn't decide on a slogan, logo, or Picture of a Happy Person, so they used five different logos that change as you roll over them.
It takes over 30 seconds just to read the web site's banner.
Did I say anything about the validity of beliefs of particular religions? No.
You're asking the wrong question, anyway. You have to ask yourself, why do I believe that human sacrifice is wrong?
Take that train of thought all the way back. At some point, you're going to bump up against faith.
Personal computers are now fast enough that we can add yet another layer of abstraction between the hardware and the applications.
I have a hunch this will succeed, because it will target web developers looking for the easiest way to make web pages "fancier." There's a huge market for this. 90% of the people you make web pages for will have no comments at all except, "Can you make the logo fade in and fly around like on www.ultrashitty.com?"
So about 20 years from now, we'll be developing applications for the Silverlight platform which will have changed names ten times by then, and it will support the Big 3 OS's which have become entrenched and have nearly identical functionality. Someone will have come along and copied an old idea to produce a new OS which is slightly better than the Big 3, but will be fighting an uphill battle because it's not Silverlight compatible.
At that point, people will realize that computers are fast enough to run a layer on top of Silverlight that's also compatible with Platinumlight, the Silverlight copy that's nearly ready for the new OS. A company will produce that, sell to Microsoft, and the cycle will continue with the Big 4 OS's.
Excuse me for replying to myself, but let me clarify. By "religion," I don't mean Christianity, The Bible, Koran, etc. Those certainly contain things that can be disproven and you shouldn't believe to be fact.
Religion in the context I used it was meant to be "ideas about the world that can't be proven scientifically." The existence of God would be one of those ideas. A flat or round earth would not.
All world religions seem to attempt to provide an explanation for God that people may find acceptable and take on faith. As far as that goes, I think they're beyond reproach.
Where religions go wrong is that they start using God as an excuse to proscribe how you should live. I think that's where a lot of the conflict occurs.
What is the difference between you believing that you're a normal, functioning person and what people in psych wards believe?
For all you know, you're sitting in a psych ward imagining this post.
You have to take some things on faith in order to function as a human being. I fail to see why one should think that people's choice to believe in God is any less valid than you believing you're not in a mental institution, or that the world actually exists beyond your own perception.
"You can make up your own meaning and purpose, if you like, one that's not based on a fantasy."
You can't ever know for certain whether religion is a fantasy or not. That's the point. You can't prove or disprove it, so it's a choice.
If you're finding your own meaning and purpose, essentially you're creating your own religion, because there's no scientific basis for "meaning".
Religion and faith are not about proof. It's a choice you make, and since the basis of the choice you make can never be proven one way or the other, it's completely up to you.
Would you rather live in a world that has meaning and purpose, and a moral absolute, or would you rather live in a world where nothing you does ever matters and the only purpose of existence is for you to feel good about yourself enough to continue to procreate?
That's the question, and there's no right answer. We can never prove that there's a right answer one way or the other. But there are a substantial number of people who would rather live in the world that has meaning and purpose, hence religion.
It doesn't matter what religion, when it comes down to it, that's what they're all pretty much about.
I guess that's a no.
I'm not trying to make some libertarian point. I think that like a sibling post said, that given enough latitude companies will take on roles traditionally associated with governments.
But I do think that an economy is so diverse and complex so as to almost rule out the possibility of one company taking over an entire industry long-term without the force of law behind them. I'm always interested to hear about counter-examples in history, as I've found none.
I'd start looking on the ground.
"It's worth remembering that truly free markets are truly unstable and lead to monopoly"
Can you give us an example of a monopoly that has existed without government support?
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely curious, because I know of none.
And by government support, I mean nothing. Microsoft would not exist without strict copyright laws and such, as would be the case in a truly free market.
I've had a professor that makes great use of his tablet, mostly because the notes are already written when he gets there, and if someone has a question he can write more on the fly.
This is at a post-grad level. I think high school math would benefit from animated examples.
I wouldn't go too far into the technology aspect, though. Pencil and paper are the tools to learn math.
The best math class I had was where the prof used contraptions he made out of springs and plywood to demonstrate differential equations.
Amen.
<immature flame>
I had to laugh when I read this article.
Here is a 60's generation music mogul (and he's spiritual, too!) who thinks all the world needs is another Bob Dylan or Beatles, and that with enough tweaking, the latest Metallica album can be just that and win over the entire youth market.
Here's a message to the 60's generation: your music and cultural heroes are not as great as you think they are, and nobody today is buying it. The media fawns over them and you because they ARE you. But nobody in my generation cares, anymore than you care about the greatness of Glenn Miller.
If I had to guess, I'd say people are sick to death of all of the amateur 60's era political and cultural revolution shit that we get bombarded with every day.
Bands don't need to be revolutionary, or make a statement, or turn the world on its head, or be the "voice of a generation." They just have to sound good.
None of the shit you put out today sounds good. The Dixie Chicks suck, because I can't just read about their latest album or enjoy their music without being bombarded with propaganda. Take your 60's BS and go home, we'd all be a lot better off.
</immature flame>
Exactly. This is the implicit assumption that the pope makes, and even a cursory examination of what governments do with tax money would make it obvious that it would be far better off in somebody else's hands.
That the Catholic Church seems to subscribe to this leftist fantasy that government is a completely moral entity that will solve all the worlds problems given enough money doesn't surprise me. But the Pope is completely wrong.
How could an organization that criticizes the war in Iraq turn around and criticize private organizations for not voluntarily contributing money to fund it? They're not doing anything illegal, and from any moral standpoint, they're doing good.
I expected a bunch of rules and such, what I didn't expect was the effect they had on people. ds
I'd love to join all you free people up in New Hampshire, but it's just so damn cold. Couldn't you all have picked a more temperate free state? Sure, it'd be a bit more work to change the motto on the license plate, but you'd have more than two seasons.
I could go be a libertarian in Antarctica too, but no thanks.
To the contrary, libertarians understand that an economy is so hopelessly complex that most attempts to regulate or "fix" it will inevitably fail due to unforeseen and unintended consequences.
Google for Walter Williams to read what a libertarian economist thinks. He'd be the last person to say that an economy is simple.
The Republican party as it exists right now has completely abandoned all conservative principles.
I would vote Republican every time if people like Tom Coburn or Ron Paul typified a Republican. Unfortunately, they do not.
In fact, I think those two would be quite at home in the Libertarian party, except that they'd never get elected.
The way I see it, it takes nearly no effort at all to contribute the changes back to the BSD camp that provided you with the base for the code. All else being equal, that seems to be the ethical thing to do.
It takes more effort to change the licensing in such a way that the BSD camp can't use the code. So it's kind of a slap in the face. I think that's where the animosity comes from, especially since the GPL camp proclaims to be all about freedom and sharing.
"Just so long as these new-fangled Libertarian's don't bitch and moan (or shoot up their school/workplace) when someone "does on to them" first."
This is the most common and insidious misunderstanding of what Libertarianism is.
The idea is not that society should become a free-for-all with people stabbing each other in the back simply because there is no law against it. Allow me to share a story about the U.S. military that will perfectly illustrate why I'm a libertarian.
I attended one of the U.S. Service academies. These places only accept the "best and brightest," not just academically, but really outstanding candidates who were tops in high school classes as well as being varsity athletes, community volunteers, etc. You'd be hard pressed to find a more self-motivated and responsible group of people in one place.
Over the four years I was there, I witnessed as a ridiculously strict set of rules and rigid enforcement of the letter-of-the-law turned this outstanding group of people into a bunch of cynical, irresponsible, lazy, backstabbing children. Admittedly, part of that is probably the due to nature of college-age people, but this went far beyond that.
I can honestly say that the only people who graduated better off than they were in high school (other than having the academic experience) were those who rejected the entire system and played by the rules just enough to not get into trouble, and relied on their own sense of right and wrong to get by.
Maybe that's the whole point of the place. If it is, it's not by design.
But anyway, the lesson I learned is that no system of rules and laws is capable of positively shaping a culture. In fact, from what I observed, very strict rules were like crack for unthinking people who would never develop their own moral code. It's much easier to act legally than it is to act ethically, because ethical action requires a lot of thought and reflection.
But for a system to work over the long term, people have to act ethically. John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I think a strict set of laws fosters irresponsibility. It's counter-productive.
It's Google's Earth, so the Mac actually has a long way to go to be a good citizen on it.
I think that just about sums it up perfectly. Mod parent up, please.
I'm no GPS expert, but isn't GPS itself completely passive?
When do GPS units upload anything?
I could submit nonsense on a variety of obscure topics, with low odds that anybody will find and correct them, thereby building up a great reputation. I wonder if their system accounts for that.
This is starting to sound like Karma for wikipedia.