Nah, he's a comrade who works with the same organization (CORRUPT).
When you think about it, modern life IS spam.
* Movies like Burn After Reading: you learn nothing, you laugh a little at recycled jokes, six months later you don't even care. It's brain-spam to keep you from noticing how much your life sucks.
* Fast food is clearly caloric and nutritional spam, but it's also a spam meme. "I need food quickly" should mean "make a sandwich."
* Sex is spam. Get drunk, find some random slag in a bar, and then afterwards you're thinking you should be happy because all your friends will no longer think you're a loser because you had sex. Brain spam.
* Politics is spam. The same lobbyists own all the candidates, so they make a cute little show before deciding which industries need support this year.
The only difference is that people think they want this spam instead of radical spam, which only 29% at any given time think they want.
It may be modern art, or postmodern theory, or avantgarde poetry -- but you see it as spam.
The problem is that your interpretation is that... just an interpretation! There is no objective reality, even known relativistically, for it to correspond to.
Reality is anything you want it to be.
Spam might be the most genius works of our culture, and you would ban it.
Only Hitler is anti-spam. Stand for freedom: stand up for spam!
Respecting someone's right to an opinion and respecting their opinion are two completely different things. I respect other peoples right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself.
We will need to pick a political solution. One side wants a theocracy, the other a scientific government. There are advantages to both sides as history teaches us.
How do we pick? Or do we keep respecting each other's opinions, never reaching a consensus, and let our intransigence shuffle us off into the dust-bin of history?
For whatever reasons, market forces have given open source a chance.
If Via turns around six months from now, and their driver is much improved by the community, this will encourage them in a big way to do this again in the future.
Video drivers could be an entrance for the open source community to the hardware market. Everyone needs them; most don't work so great all the time. There's room for exploration and excellence.
McDonalds is probably the most popular restaurant in the country. Have you looked lately at what they're serving?
Feces, blended with enough chemicals to disguise its true nature, could become a popular snack. Of course they don't just serve you shit next to fine wine; they're smarter than that.
Much of democratic liberal capitalist societies is dressing up low-cost turds as high-value products. That plastic junk you took home from Wal-mart was a bargain... until it broke six months later and you realized it was an inferior version of something better. But most don't realize. They keep buying.
In the same way, in a democracy, you depend on making a situation appear to be something that gives people warm fuzzies or dark fears, when the situation is actually more complex. You don't deal in reality because most of the electorate can't handle reality in their own lives, and they definitely don't want to hear it from their figureheads.
Tell me, why does history record no successful democracies?
Maybe it's because all that matters is the perception of the person voting when they place that vote. Just like all that matters is the perception of the person buying when they slide that credit card. There's no followup, no correspondence to reality.
If you think about it, there's a lot of political complaining on this site, but no one has any solutions other than to "try harder" at certain aspects of the system as it is. Why do you think that is? And when do you think it will succeed?
In Democracy, image -- how we communicate to a Crowd -- matters more than reality. So we often trade sanity for insanity.
Uninformed people will tell you this is a question of liberty versus tyranny. What if liberty empowers tyranny, through the bad judgment of most people?
I know this is a unpopular opinion. Most truths are until they reach a tipping point of smart people believing in them. You can help make this change!
The point really is that we need to stop framing debates based upon what the radicals of either side of the aisle are telling us to frame them as and to start and think for ourselves.
Can most people do this?
What makes radicals, in most cases, is people choosing symbolism over reality.
Yet we know that dumb people or primitive people -- witchcraft, witch-hunting, superstition, dualistic religion -- will pick symbolism over reality.
So the average citizen "thinking for himself" could result in a worst-case scenario of what you describe, don't you think?
If you design a web site, you want it to show up looking roughly the same on most browsers. For simplicity's sake, most people use the standard fonts (and Mac equivalents).
If we're going to be embedding fonts, obviously we want as few boring, cumbersome procedures as possible. Forcing us to regenerate pages to approve font use counts as one of these.
Microsoft is barking up the wrong tree on this one.
It was probably the decision to openly license it. The Mac--when the Mac came out and for two years thereafter it was at least four or five years ahead of Windows and possibly could have taken the place of Windows if it was openly licensed, but because the Macintosh was restricted to a single member, Apple, it never could become an industry rather than a single platform.
Highly insightful. The Mac was like the old order, where one company made hardware, OS and software. The PC is part of the new order.
Maybe this order will change soon with "cloud computing" (sounds like trying to find the diameter of a fart) but I doubt it.
Censorship is typically understood to mean the redaction of inconvenient literature or media by the ruling government. Private companies and individuals are exempt from the term censorship.
What if a company, like Apple, runs the #1 forums on the topic that have become the de facto standard source of information?
It's like Apple censoring Wikipedia, but because of your categorical logic, you are unwilling to consider that option.
Not speaking on this particular issue, but with your method.
As a scientist, what makes you think that the broadest sample represents the most accurate one, when we're talking about questions of analytical ability?
Most people want Britney Spears. Most people want TV and donuts. Most people hide their heads in the sand.
I don't think "most people" ever come up with the right answer to anything.
What, you mean the free market didn't end slavery?
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
Interestingly, no one seems to know much about how the slave trade was ended, in large part due to the efforts of Britain after we decided to abolish it.
Preposterous.
The invisible hand ushered slavery off the face of this earth, just as the great Libertarian God had predicted aeons ago.
Oh wait, that opinion is decidedly unpopular, so it'll get modded down and no one will see it, and even if they did, their heads are so full of TV they might not even be ready to accept it, so this was probably a waste of time. KTHXBYE
Politically free, free market societies simply tend to do better in the long run than repressive, totalitarian societies.
How many of these "politically free, free market societies" have existed for more than 200 years?
You realize 200 years is the time it takes history to sneeze while contemplating the fate of nations?
The Chinese may be right: until this whole "liberal democracy" agenda shows it can make a stable civilization for half a millennium, it's not worth trading a five millennium society for!
Of course, they think free speech and democracy are silver bullets, and prescribe heavy doses of them, because they work instantly when you install a shrink wrapped version onto any country. The only thing holding it back is the evil, EVIL dictator whose greatest pleasure is to oppress people. Once you take down that EVIL dictator everything works PERFECTLY.
That's the best summary so far.
I even think it's a mistake to see system of government as the enemy. When China was a starving mostly third-world nation, its Communist government did OK by the whole of the nation in getting it out of that state, even if some people were oppressed or died.
On internet sites, we drown in people who like one-click solutions. Just install Democracy, problem solved! These one-click voters fear any more complex solutions because (a) they're not sure they can understand them and (b) they're afraid that a complex solution will make them less "free," which really means un-accountable for maintaining the society around them.
As an old Star Trek opined, The needs of the many are greater than the needs of the one.
Nations are like living things. People are like their cells. We can whine about being cells, or we can face reality and grow up a bit, which is the one thing one-click voters don't like to do.
Show me anti-Bush bloggers or songwriters disappearing off the streets of NY or Chicago or LA, and I'll agree America's problems deserve more attention than China's.
When you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers.
I say America is decaying. You say America is not arresting bloggers, THEREFORE we are doing just fine. You are equating the path to decay to the path of arresting bloggers. Since there is more to the issue than that, I think you are asking the wrong question as a way of (personally) avoiding the issue.
Your government and media tell you that you have freedom because anti-Bush bloggers (an inconsequential cabal of people who make under $40,000 a year and so feel disenfranchised in a political system where media influences equals votes) are still walking the streets. It would be convenient for them if decay could be so measured in laws...
Nations decay as their citizens lose consensus on values. A nation is not its institutions, its laws or its leaders. A nation is its people. Nations are organic things. They can be born, age, and die. Ours is now dying (see Plato for confirmation) and you're worried about
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
This is the sort of idiotic "moral relativism" argument that allows murdering thugs to continue with their actions. The "all opinions are equally valid" crapola that is destroying western society. There are such things as "right" and "wrong". Adults having sex with children (and adults taking pictures of it) is *wrong* by ANY civilized standards. Murdering monks in the streets or shipping people off to "re-education camps" for protesting is *wrong*. Why should we be afraid of confronting it or speaking out about it?
I am a scientist; I see no evidence for absolute "wrong" or "right" in the universe. I do not see that as moral relativism, which appears to me to be making excuses from an absolute standard for favored groups.
What I am arguing here, in fact, has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with isolationism. They can run their country as they see fit, because this is the best way for all humans to get along. If horrors occur there, well, c'est la vie -- we have more than enough problems here we should be fixing.
I find it ironic that on a message board where most people will argue for individual independence that it is considered OK to violate another nation's independence. It seems to a mentality of trying to make the whole world safe by conquering anything that personally frightens us.
My advice for the West is simple:
(A) You are decaying from within. Fix yourselves. (B) If what China does annoys you, stop buying cheap goods from China and let them wither on the vine. (C) Recognize that life is, always has been, and always will be a struggle, presumably to eliminate the delusional and promote the realistic.
I am a scientist. I am a realist. This is the best theory I can give you.
But it's far easier for people to go into denial, as you can see when a thread whose content is "They are cowards - afraid to look in the mirror. Now some chinese person's going to reply to this and tell me about all the western hypocrisy, but unlike most westerners, they'll never turn their gaze upon themselves." modded up above any more realistic commentary.
Why? It's easier to blame the Chinese than look at our own problems and realize we in the West should clean house first.
I consider modding this a troll an unwillingness to view it as a serious opinion, but I am serious.
There are two basic types of view of what America should be: world policeman, or citizen of the earth.
Growing up during the Cold War, I saw our government spend the best of our money and efforts fending off foreign adversaries and fighting pointless wars.
If we're world policeman, there's more of those wars coming.
If we're just a citizen of the earth, we defend our interests, mind our own business -- and we have a ton of cleanup to do within our own borders, in our own souls -- and let the Chinese do what they're gonna do. I don't care if they destroy Tibet, rape every first born child with a glue gun, and pour buckets of hot acid onto their women. It's their country and it should be their rules.
Like a neurotic neighbor, the West keeps going to countries like Viet Nam in the name of Good, and brings Evil because we're aware that what we're doing isn't absolutely right. We're finding excuses to avoid looking at our problems at home.
In my religion, Hinduism, we view all other religions as branches of Hinduism. So I find this passage from the Bible to be memorable:
3 And why behold the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how will thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:3-5 (King James Version)
The West can't see that we've got a beam in our own eye, so we keep finding reasons to intervene elsewhere because we view ourselves as the God-given moral authority on planet earth.
I can't think of a more pretentious, misguided plan, nor one surer to leave behind fields of enemies growing stronger as we grow weak.
Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
We ban child porn and bomb making instructions, they ban bad music that criticizes the government.
If anything they should be consistent and just ban bad music.
How is it our place to criticize them? A country should be able to make decisions about what ideas it tolerates within its borders. Not all countries will make the same decision.
Not everyone agrees with us enlightened, progressive, "free" Westerners. Get over it and get over yourselves. There's no scientific proof that our way is the universal right!
This has been said ad nauseum: There's nothing inherent about perl that makes its programs unmaintainable or broken. It's all about getting programmers who know how to write maintainable, well-designed code. A bad programmer can make an abortion of any programming language or fancy pointy clicky system.
That was my response to this article as well.
They're chasing trends instead of paying attention to the quality of programmers they're using, because smart programmers are not interchangeable parts. They prefer cogs.
Management isn't all as screwed up as this. Some managers prefer highly intelligent staff that can work semi-autonomously.
That's not what you said. Actually, you laid out a complex theory, going back to apes, of something you called 'genetic optimization'. Then you said, "people will identify with their optimization more than abstract and often illusory political concepts" like nation-states. You said future conflicts would unfold between "organic nations" of different genetic optimizations. I must have been crazy to read race-war into that; what was I thinking?
The topic isn't about race: it's about European ethnicities.
The point was that nation-state wars are declining, and that the future is people organizing themselves by nations and not nation states.
That's Huntington's point, and it ties into the importance of the article, which is about European ethnicities, not race.
The connection to race is in your head and nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, he's a comrade who works with the same organization (CORRUPT).
When you think about it, modern life IS spam.
* Movies like Burn After Reading: you learn nothing, you laugh a little at recycled jokes, six months later you don't even care. It's brain-spam to keep you from noticing how much your life sucks.
* Fast food is clearly caloric and nutritional spam, but it's also a spam meme. "I need food quickly" should mean "make a sandwich."
* Sex is spam. Get drunk, find some random slag in a bar, and then afterwards you're thinking you should be happy because all your friends will no longer think you're a loser because you had sex. Brain spam.
* Politics is spam. The same lobbyists own all the candidates, so they make a cute little show before deciding which industries need support this year.
The only difference is that people think they want this spam instead of radical spam, which only 29% at any given time think they want.
They are exercising their freedom.
It may be modern art, or postmodern theory, or avantgarde poetry -- but you see it as spam.
The problem is that your interpretation is that... just an interpretation! There is no objective reality, even known relativistically, for it to correspond to.
Reality is anything you want it to be.
Spam might be the most genius works of our culture, and you would ban it.
Only Hitler is anti-spam. Stand for freedom: stand up for spam!
Respecting someone's right to an opinion and respecting their opinion are two completely different things. I respect other peoples right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself.
We will need to pick a political solution. One side wants a theocracy, the other a scientific government. There are advantages to both sides as history teaches us.
How do we pick? Or do we keep respecting each other's opinions, never reaching a consensus, and let our intransigence shuffle us off into the dust-bin of history?
For whatever reasons, market forces have given open source a chance.
If Via turns around six months from now, and their driver is much improved by the community, this will encourage them in a big way to do this again in the future.
Video drivers could be an entrance for the open source community to the hardware market. Everyone needs them; most don't work so great all the time. There's room for exploration and excellence.
McDonalds is probably the most popular restaurant in the country. Have you looked lately at what they're serving?
Feces, blended with enough chemicals to disguise its true nature, could become a popular snack. Of course they don't just serve you shit next to fine wine; they're smarter than that.
Much of democratic liberal capitalist societies is dressing up low-cost turds as high-value products. That plastic junk you took home from Wal-mart was a bargain... until it broke six months later and you realized it was an inferior version of something better. But most don't realize. They keep buying.
In the same way, in a democracy, you depend on making a situation appear to be something that gives people warm fuzzies or dark fears, when the situation is actually more complex. You don't deal in reality because most of the electorate can't handle reality in their own lives, and they definitely don't want to hear it from their figureheads.
Tell me, why does history record no successful democracies?
Maybe it's because all that matters is the perception of the person voting when they place that vote. Just like all that matters is the perception of the person buying when they slide that credit card. There's no followup, no correspondence to reality.
If you think about it, there's a lot of political complaining on this site, but no one has any solutions other than to "try harder" at certain aspects of the system as it is. Why do you think that is? And when do you think it will succeed?
We've been tolerating it a lot longer than that.
Remember Waco?
What about the War on Drugs?
Or the Alien and Sedition acts?
What about the death of Socrates?
In Democracy, image -- how we communicate to a Crowd -- matters more than reality. So we often trade sanity for insanity.
Uninformed people will tell you this is a question of liberty versus tyranny. What if liberty empowers tyranny, through the bad judgment of most people?
I know this is a unpopular opinion. Most truths are until they reach a tipping point of smart people believing in them. You can help make this change!
The point really is that we need to stop framing debates based upon what the radicals of either side of the aisle are telling us to frame them as and to start and think for ourselves.
Can most people do this?
What makes radicals, in most cases, is people choosing symbolism over reality.
Yet we know that dumb people or primitive people -- witchcraft, witch-hunting, superstition, dualistic religion -- will pick symbolism over reality.
So the average citizen "thinking for himself" could result in a worst-case scenario of what you describe, don't you think?
http://crime.about.com/b/2006/10/24/houston-homicide-rate-attributed-to-katrina.htm
Disasters occur everywhere, but in different degrees.
You're trying to conflate "disasters occur everywhere" with "disasters are likely to occur everywhere at the same degree."
Our point is that places where disasters occur at a high degree should not be rebuilt, especially not with civilian populations.
It's not really that hard, but you're making it out to be rocket science.
If you design a web site, you want it to show up looking roughly the same on most browsers. For simplicity's sake, most people use the standard fonts (and Mac equivalents).
http://www.ampsoft.net/webdesign-l/WindowsMacFonts.html
If we're going to be embedding fonts, obviously we want as few boring, cumbersome procedures as possible. Forcing us to regenerate pages to approve font use counts as one of these.
Microsoft is barking up the wrong tree on this one.
It was probably the decision to openly license it. The Mac--when the Mac came out and for two years thereafter it was at least four or five years ahead of Windows and possibly could have taken the place of Windows if it was openly licensed, but because the Macintosh was restricted to a single member, Apple, it never could become an industry rather than a single platform.
Highly insightful. The Mac was like the old order, where one company made hardware, OS and software. The PC is part of the new order.
Maybe this order will change soon with "cloud computing" (sounds like trying to find the diameter of a fart) but I doubt it.
Censorship is typically understood to mean the redaction of inconvenient literature or media by the ruling government. Private companies and individuals are exempt from the term censorship.
What if a company, like Apple, runs the #1 forums on the topic that have become the de facto standard source of information?
It's like Apple censoring Wikipedia, but because of your categorical logic, you are unwilling to consider that option.
most civilized people have come to accept.
Not speaking on this particular issue, but with your method.
As a scientist, what makes you think that the broadest sample represents the most accurate one, when we're talking about questions of analytical ability?
Most people want Britney Spears.
Most people want TV and donuts.
Most people hide their heads in the sand.
I don't think "most people" ever come up with the right answer to anything.
Interestingly, no one seems to know much about how the slave trade was ended, in large part due to the efforts of Britain after we decided to abolish it.
Preposterous.
The invisible hand ushered slavery off the face of this earth, just as the great Libertarian God had predicted aeons ago.
Oh wait, that opinion is decidedly unpopular, so it'll get modded down and no one will see it, and even if they did, their heads are so full of TV they might not even be ready to accept it, so this was probably a waste of time. KTHXBYE
Politically free, free market societies simply tend to do better in the long run than repressive, totalitarian societies.
How many of these "politically free, free market societies" have existed for more than 200 years?
You realize 200 years is the time it takes history to sneeze while contemplating the fate of nations?
The Chinese may be right: until this whole "liberal democracy" agenda shows it can make a stable civilization for half a millennium, it's not worth trading a five millennium society for!
Of course, they think free speech and democracy are silver bullets, and prescribe heavy doses of them, because they work instantly when you install a shrink wrapped version onto any country. The only thing holding it back is the evil, EVIL dictator whose greatest pleasure is to oppress people. Once you take down that EVIL dictator everything works PERFECTLY.
That's the best summary so far.
I even think it's a mistake to see system of government as the enemy. When China was a starving mostly third-world nation, its Communist government did OK by the whole of the nation in getting it out of that state, even if some people were oppressed or died.
On internet sites, we drown in people who like one-click solutions. Just install Democracy, problem solved! These one-click voters fear any more complex solutions because (a) they're not sure they can understand them and (b) they're afraid that a complex solution will make them less "free," which really means un-accountable for maintaining the society around them.
As an old Star Trek opined, The needs of the many are greater than the needs of the one.
Nations are like living things. People are like their cells. We can whine about being cells, or we can face reality and grow up a bit, which is the one thing one-click voters don't like to do.
Show me anti-Bush bloggers or songwriters disappearing off the streets of NY or Chicago or LA, and I'll agree America's problems deserve more attention than China's.
When you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers.
I say America is decaying. You say America is not arresting bloggers, THEREFORE we are doing just fine. You are equating the path to decay to the path of arresting bloggers. Since there is more to the issue than that, I think you are asking the wrong question as a way of (personally) avoiding the issue.
Your government and media tell you that you have freedom because anti-Bush bloggers (an inconsequential cabal of people who make under $40,000 a year and so feel disenfranchised in a political system where media influences equals votes) are still walking the streets. It would be convenient for them if decay could be so measured in laws...
Nations decay as their citizens lose consensus on values. A nation is not its institutions, its laws or its leaders. A nation is its people. Nations are organic things. They can be born, age, and die. Ours is now dying (see Plato for confirmation) and you're worried about
This is the sort of idiotic "moral relativism" argument that allows murdering thugs to continue with their actions. The "all opinions are equally valid" crapola that is destroying western society. There are such things as "right" and "wrong". Adults having sex with children (and adults taking pictures of it) is *wrong* by ANY civilized standards. Murdering monks in the streets or shipping people off to "re-education camps" for protesting is *wrong*. Why should we be afraid of confronting it or speaking out about it?
I am a scientist; I see no evidence for absolute "wrong" or "right" in the universe. I do not see that as moral relativism, which appears to me to be making excuses from an absolute standard for favored groups.
What I am arguing here, in fact, has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with isolationism. They can run their country as they see fit, because this is the best way for all humans to get along. If horrors occur there, well, c'est la vie -- we have more than enough problems here we should be fixing.
I find it ironic that on a message board where most people will argue for individual independence that it is considered OK to violate another nation's independence. It seems to a mentality of trying to make the whole world safe by conquering anything that personally frightens us.
My advice for the West is simple:
(A) You are decaying from within. Fix yourselves.
(B) If what China does annoys you, stop buying cheap goods from China and let them wither on the vine.
(C) Recognize that life is, always has been, and always will be a struggle, presumably to eliminate the delusional and promote the realistic.
I am a scientist. I am a realist. This is the best theory I can give you.
I think it's a habit of all dying regimes, dying nations and failing groups to engage in surrogate activities.
Americans aren't unique. They're just at the head of this trend in the West. The UK and Canada follow, and after that, mainland Europe.
It's a path to decay you can find outlined here:
The Republic
But it's far easier for people to go into denial, as you can see when a thread whose content is "They are cowards - afraid to look in the mirror. Now some chinese person's going to reply to this and tell me about all the western hypocrisy, but unlike most westerners, they'll never turn their gaze upon themselves." modded up above any more realistic commentary.
Why? It's easier to blame the Chinese than look at our own problems and realize we in the West should clean house first.
I consider modding this a troll an unwillingness to view it as a serious opinion, but I am serious.
There are two basic types of view of what America should be: world policeman, or citizen of the earth.
Growing up during the Cold War, I saw our government spend the best of our money and efforts fending off foreign adversaries and fighting pointless wars.
If we're world policeman, there's more of those wars coming.
If we're just a citizen of the earth, we defend our interests, mind our own business -- and we have a ton of cleanup to do within our own borders, in our own souls -- and let the Chinese do what they're gonna do. I don't care if they destroy Tibet, rape every first born child with a glue gun, and pour buckets of hot acid onto their women. It's their country and it should be their rules.
Like a neurotic neighbor, the West keeps going to countries like Viet Nam in the name of Good, and brings Evil because we're aware that what we're doing isn't absolutely right. We're finding excuses to avoid looking at our problems at home.
In my religion, Hinduism, we view all other religions as branches of Hinduism. So I find this passage from the Bible to be memorable:
3 And why behold the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how will thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:3-5 (King James Version)
The West can't see that we've got a beam in our own eye, so we keep finding reasons to intervene elsewhere because we view ourselves as the God-given moral authority on planet earth.
I can't think of a more pretentious, misguided plan, nor one surer to leave behind fields of enemies growing stronger as we grow weak.
We ban child porn and bomb making instructions, they ban bad music that criticizes the government.
If anything they should be consistent and just ban bad music.
How is it our place to criticize them? A country should be able to make decisions about what ideas it tolerates within its borders. Not all countries will make the same decision.
Not everyone agrees with us enlightened, progressive, "free" Westerners. Get over it and get over yourselves. There's no scientific proof that our way is the universal right!
Wives 3-7 need satisfaction, when you're done with the lawn. Hop to it!
This has been said ad nauseum: There's nothing inherent about perl that makes its programs unmaintainable or broken. It's all about getting programmers who know how to write maintainable, well-designed code. A bad programmer can make an abortion of any programming language or fancy pointy clicky system.
That was my response to this article as well.
They're chasing trends instead of paying attention to the quality of programmers they're using, because smart programmers are not interchangeable parts. They prefer cogs.
Management isn't all as screwed up as this. Some managers prefer highly intelligent staff that can work semi-autonomously.
Warriner's English Grammar
That's not what you said. Actually, you laid out a complex theory, going back to apes, of something you called 'genetic optimization'. Then you said, "people will identify with their optimization more than abstract and often illusory political concepts" like nation-states. You said future conflicts would unfold between "organic nations" of different genetic optimizations. I must have been crazy to read race-war into that; what was I thinking?
The topic isn't about race: it's about European ethnicities.
The point was that nation-state wars are declining, and that the future is people organizing themselves by nations and not nation states.
That's Huntington's point, and it ties into the importance of the article, which is about European ethnicities, not race.
The connection to race is in your head and nowhere.