Re:Holy shit! This guy has the same lame idea I do
on
The Encryption Wars
·
· Score: 1
my apologies; you are correct that he's proposing command-line interfaces as the essential aspect of computer-user interaction. however, i'm not sure how far he wants to push it. he uses x-windows, and i'm sure he doesn't do everything out of a prompt. i agree with him to the extant that the two should co-exist; i dislike not being able to interact 'linguistically', hence my general objection to MacOS. context-sensitive language i also have no problem with.
curious as to how you differentiate thought and linguistic interaction. isn't a computer's translation of thought a 'linguistic' interaction on a more direct level?
it breaks down on the same level the car analogy does; yes, many people these days want to work on their cars and tinker around, but many still buy jettas with those plastic hood covers and bright neon oil caps, and don't even consider that there might be other stuff under there. in the end, i'm not quite so optimistic; linux is a product, and will fail or succeed in the same way others do.
And in response to Mr. Hunter, I run debian. it's nice, and i get those neat little messages from the debian security mailing list. do i think my box is more secure than a windows box? hell yes. do i have a fully secure system? hell no. i could perhaps point out only a few more security holes in my system than i could on a windows box.
Nonsense; how do you know your system doesn't have backdoors now? Do you routinely run through the source code of every one of the thousands of applications you have installed? Source code makes this easier, but not that easy.
And the article seems to imply a more important point than simply 'ra! ra! linux! goooo...free software!'. Linux is now on the free market, with only two advantages to get it going: free access, and open source. A multi-national company with several times the liquidity of the U.S. government isn't going to care much about the purchase price, and the open source isn't going to win the hearts of the people, since most just don't care. Better than that, Linux is a viable alternative, and can now compete on the levels a product should: reliability, suitability for a task, etc.
Re:Holy shit! This guy has the same lame idea I do
on
The Encryption Wars
·
· Score: 1
As always, the article is more often quoted than read. One of the main points of the article is that more and more computer users, especially those who have grown up around them since birth, will be dissatisfied with the inability to putz around and understand fundamentally how their machines work (hence the car analogy).
An entirely GUI-based system can only take you so far towards that goal. Yes, learning is done very often in non-linguistic ways, and the initial stages of someone's growth involve sight and touch and not speech. As an introduction to computers, this should be lauded. But how often have you learned something beyond that non-linguistically, audially? I'd be interested in hearing how many people don't have a terminal running on their desktop under X.
Further, he seems very optimistic in believing that knowledge of computers will be part of the standard education of the future; everybody will need to know something about them. So it's not just technocrats, but everyone's desire to learn and interact on a linguistic level.
Anyway, he never made an objection to GUI's in general...he objected to a system which never lets you go beyond the GUI. Mind, I'm not saying I agree with him (I believe, and I think this is implicit in the article, that OS-choice is a product of the free market; you choose the one that suits your needs, and I have no right to determine what your computing needs are or how to fill them), but I believe that is his point. Oh, and yes, I think datajacks are a bad idea; the mere thought of someone cracking my disturbed little mind makes me shudder.
From the article: The crucial thing, says Millis, is whether Goodwin's magnet would produce any net motion at all--it might just sit there and vibrate.
I think there's one obvious useful application, though it might not be quite what you're looking for.
All right, let me change that; 1) we're bitter because we got whumped. 2) because you make idiotic laws, you can't criticize our idiotic laws.
Better? I don't mean to sound derisive or insulting (apologies, it just comes naturally), but why do you keep on bashing everybody who disagrees with this law as misofrancic (is that a word? if not, it should be), then quietly insert your own disagreement with it?
This has nothing to do with hating the French or any nationality. It's about the effects of a really stupid law passed under a very dangerous premise. This poppycock about the American hang-up with sexual issues is rather irrelevant, don't you think?
Stop repeating it! we heard you the first, second, third, and now fourth time. You still haven't proven your point; correct me again if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be 1) We got whumped and have a right to be bitter and irrational 2) You have idiotic laws, and that gives us the right to have idiotic laws.
And as for the yahoo.fr/.com, business; sorry, sucko, read the article: Order Yahoo! Inc. to take all measures at their availability, to dissuade and render impossible all visitation on Yahoo.com to participate in the auction service of nazi objects, as well as to render impossible any other site or service which makes apologies of Nazism or that contests Nazi crimes;...
The equation of Nazi objects with Nazi apologetics is the bullshit most of the people here have issue with.
yes, yes, that's nice; no Americans were harmed in the filming of this war.
How old are you, dude? Unless you're over 55, chances are you don't remember tanks breaking into your nursery or parading down Paris streets either. All you have to go on is the stories of parents and historians. Don't personalize a war in which you took no part.
Yes, and I used to vacation in France as a child, and thus have an intricate knowledge of your government and national character. Pfui.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but do not the French people as a whole support the anti-hate speech laws and the current actions of the French courts?
Anyway, this is not the issue; the problem is country x is trying to enforce its regional laws on a corporation in country y. I dislike the French government and its methods of protective censorship (along with the same methods implemented in Germany and several other countries, though they don't seem to be bringing lawsuits), and find vague concepts of collective guilt a ridiculous basis for legislation. I detest socialism (this includes Blair, Clinton, Schroeder (whom I voted against; remember that even the Nazis were a socialist party), et al.). And I find the United States to be a flawed and fucked up country (though perhaps less so than many others). None of this has anything to do with the issues brought up by this case.
Rather than sitting here bitching about bitching about France, why not focus on the issue at hand? How is this absurd regionalism going to change the internet, both theoretically and practically? Does this mean that when I create a homepage, I have to take into account every possible viewing audience and the laws of every country? If Mr. Ghadafi sets up a page suggesting we shoot the president, does that mean the U.S. can sue? (stupid example, I know).
There's no gripe here with how France runs its country; in fact, I don't give a damn, they can have all the socialism and censorship they want and pat themselves on the back at night and say 'isn't it grand how we're finally standing up to the nazis'. In fact, as I understand it, most of the French agree with the censorship laws. Bully for them; can't argue with democracy, will of the people and all that crap.
But this case is about the French trying to exercise control over an international corporation; instead of sucking it up and going after the French who buy Nazi materials, they're going after the seller. Bah, humbug.
And don't pull that collective memory bullshit, either. Massive guilt over the collaboration of some 50 years past is not, to my knowledge, a basis for broad, sweeping legislation against the international community. How many people alive in France today were alive during WWII?
The internet is now officially screwed. Whatever happens with this case, a nasty precedent has been set for any and every government.
And, by the way, what's up with that crappy babel-fish translation? "...an offense to the collective memory of a nation profoundly murdered by atrocities". This statement shouldn't be nearly as funny as it sounds. Anybody have a link to the French?
Sorry, meant to post this earlier, but my ISP went down just as I was compiling the links, and I couldn't get a connection back until this morning. Coincidence? I think not! : )
The original story on c't can be found here, mentioning the ongoing legal problems in Germany as well as the Hamburg opening. Executive Software is a member of the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises. Of course they believe that their way is the best: what group doesn't? The group's methods allow only members who follow their business philosophy, which is based on what they called Hubbard's 'religious' texts. Their purpose is to spread the use of their business practices/religious beliefs; hence their licensing of WISE consultants, who must be approved by the organization.
The homepage of their CEO says about as much; that his method of practicing business is to incorporate Scientology. Thus, anyone working for him must also use the same beliefs and methods.
Does this satisfy? Theres also this place, but I recognize a serious logical flaw in taking your evidence from a vehemently anti-scientologist source; let them hang themselves by their own words.
It's not just a 'religious affiliation'. Read the position papers and corporate goals of Executive Software, inc. They view their organisation as a tool specifically for funding and furthering CoS goals, i.e., full integration of the cult into world government and business. You want to talk about discrimination? When they opened their Hamburg offices, their only hiring requirement was that you be a member of CoS; computer skills were desirable, but not necessary.
They're also currently being investigated for corporate espionage by the German government. Even if I were for Scientology, this corporation is run by a 'religion' which has been declared illegal in a Germany, and by its nature refuses to separate its beliefs from its corporate practices.
I'd abuse my power to appoint brigadier generals at will and flood the military with my supporters, then stage a government coup to force everyone to become libertarian, damnit!
Ummm, you still end up with more money than the fry guy; he's still going to have to get another job to support that crack habit.
I still hate socialist boy's tax plan (what little he mentioned), but c'mon; who's going to serve you greasy fries and burgers if we don't provide some incentive?
I'm guessing it's for the same reason he's running for president when, realistically, he has no chance in hell of winning: to present intelligent (*cough*) challenges to the platforms of the major two. Unfortunately, that's how a dual-party system works; the best a third party can hope for right now is to nip at the heels of the democrats and republicans. In the end I'll probably follow conventional wisdom, hold my nose and vote; chances are, I'll go to vote and break down crying.
By the by, for your other/write-in choices, check out this site for your 'other' alternatives (Cruel site of the day). My favorite is the guy who's running so the government wills top stealing his mail.
No, seriously now; I think many people end up voting for a negative, the person who has the best chances against the candidate they hate most. This alone would drive them away from men like Nader or Browne.
This is the sad state of American politics; it's almost impossible to vote for someone you like, so you end up voting for someone you dislike less.
Is he suggesting that the candidates have been smashing machine looms in their free time?
My definition of a luddite is someone who is skeptical of technology, and openly sees its detrimental effects, without blind-eyed romantic idealism. I consider myself a luddite; I still break out the mechanical typewriter on occasion, and prefer pencils.
Bush and the rest are dangerous not because they decry technology (which I could respect; Harlan Ellison comes to mind), but because they don't understand it.
ahem...yes, i would think so too, eh? My advisor's response was 'I have no idea; contact the CS department'. Oh well.
The problem is not obtaining the books; I have the books and the cards. The problem is finding a machine to read them, or something that will translate them. So far, I've emailed the classics bibliographer here at the U. of C., the author, several archaeologists I know who did something similar on punch-cards back in the 70's, and a few contacts on the Tübingen website for their text-processing program.
And, by the by, this seemed like the sort of strange problem Ask Slashdot would be interested in; this is far from my only resource. If you don't like the question, stop whining and post elsewhere.
Good show; wish you guys could do this more often. But not just for me, or the listeners, but for Kurt's sake. Don't you think his inbox is getting just a tad lonely?
What great precedent! No names, no links...basically anonymous cowards can now turn in troll-posts, and Slashdot will post them. As if I don't actually have enough real corporate tom-foolery to be angry at. I couldn't find any reference to this anywhere else. Cliff, did the thought of checking this story ever cross your mind?
On the first point; No, not like me. Their solution is to ban everything related to the nazis. Mine is to make everything available, and let people choose what they would like to be exposed to. At least then it's the fault of the individual for the choice. On the second; I'm not saying that these books are banned (sorry if I implied it). However, all of these are books with strong 'racist overtones'. In the case of Nietzsche and Hegel, both were misinterpreted to justify the nazis' actions. The law, as I understand it, is worded vaguely enough that almost anything objectionable could be a target. This is not a cultural question, nor is sensitivity to the of world war 2. All countries seems to have their collective head up their asses these days when it comes to internet issues; France just made the latest mistake.
Funny. Nobody (especially among the French) seems to find disturbing that this entire business implies quite a market for nazi materials in France; of course only the naughty American capitalists are to blame for it, right? I can't abide fools who justify every law by vague concepts of 'societal good'. Bringing up the dissemination of child-pornography (which you seem very fond of repeating in almost every post) is equally absurd. Nobody here is arguing for the Nazis or their views. Almost everybody seems to be arguing Voltaire.
P.S. And, unless you're over 50, please stop acting like you've personally had the s.s. storming down your doors. You are no more a victim than I, no matter where you live.
Slashdot Mirror
curious as to how you differentiate thought and linguistic interaction. isn't a computer's translation of thought a 'linguistic' interaction on a more direct level?
And in response to Mr. Hunter, I run debian. it's nice, and i get those neat little messages from the debian security mailing list. do i think my box is more secure than a windows box? hell yes. do i have a fully secure system? hell no. i could perhaps point out only a few more security holes in my system than i could on a windows box.
And the article seems to imply a more important point than simply 'ra! ra! linux! goooo...free software!'. Linux is now on the free market, with only two advantages to get it going: free access, and open source. A multi-national company with several times the liquidity of the U.S. government isn't going to care much about the purchase price, and the open source isn't going to win the hearts of the people, since most just don't care. Better than that, Linux is a viable alternative, and can now compete on the levels a product should: reliability, suitability for a task, etc.
An entirely GUI-based system can only take you so far towards that goal. Yes, learning is done very often in non-linguistic ways, and the initial stages of someone's growth involve sight and touch and not speech. As an introduction to computers, this should be lauded. But how often have you learned something beyond that non-linguistically, audially? I'd be interested in hearing how many people don't have a terminal running on their desktop under X.
Further, he seems very optimistic in believing that knowledge of computers will be part of the standard education of the future; everybody will need to know something about them. So it's not just technocrats, but everyone's desire to learn and interact on a linguistic level.
Anyway, he never made an objection to GUI's in general...he objected to a system which never lets you go beyond the GUI. Mind, I'm not saying I agree with him (I believe, and I think this is implicit in the article, that OS-choice is a product of the free market; you choose the one that suits your needs, and I have no right to determine what your computing needs are or how to fill them), but I believe that is his point. Oh, and yes, I think datajacks are a bad idea; the mere thought of someone cracking my disturbed little mind makes me shudder.
From the article: The crucial thing, says Millis, is whether Goodwin's magnet would produce any net motion at all--it might just sit there and vibrate.
I think there's one obvious useful application, though it might not be quite what you're looking for.
You've got some serious issues, dude. Let me guess, you respond to Natalie Portmann posts too, right?
Better? I don't mean to sound derisive or insulting (apologies, it just comes naturally), but why do you keep on bashing everybody who disagrees with this law as misofrancic (is that a word? if not, it should be), then quietly insert your own disagreement with it?
This has nothing to do with hating the French or any nationality. It's about the effects of a really stupid law passed under a very dangerous premise. This poppycock about the American hang-up with sexual issues is rather irrelevant, don't you think?
And as for the yahoo.fr/.com, business; sorry, sucko, read the article:
Order Yahoo! Inc. to take all measures at their availability, to dissuade and render impossible all visitation on Yahoo.com to participate in the auction service of nazi objects, as well as to render impossible any other site or service which makes apologies of Nazism or that contests Nazi crimes;...
The equation of Nazi objects with Nazi apologetics is the bullshit most of the people here have issue with.
How old are you, dude? Unless you're over 55, chances are you don't remember tanks breaking into your nursery or parading down Paris streets either. All you have to go on is the stories of parents and historians. Don't personalize a war in which you took no part.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but do not the French people as a whole support the anti-hate speech laws and the current actions of the French courts?
Anyway, this is not the issue; the problem is country x is trying to enforce its regional laws on a corporation in country y. I dislike the French government and its methods of protective censorship (along with the same methods implemented in Germany and several other countries, though they don't seem to be bringing lawsuits), and find vague concepts of collective guilt a ridiculous basis for legislation. I detest socialism (this includes Blair, Clinton, Schroeder (whom I voted against; remember that even the Nazis were a socialist party), et al.). And I find the United States to be a flawed and fucked up country (though perhaps less so than many others). None of this has anything to do with the issues brought up by this case.
Rather than sitting here bitching about bitching about France, why not focus on the issue at hand? How is this absurd regionalism going to change the internet, both theoretically and practically? Does this mean that when I create a homepage, I have to take into account every possible viewing audience and the laws of every country? If Mr. Ghadafi sets up a page suggesting we shoot the president, does that mean the U.S. can sue? (stupid example, I know).
But this case is about the French trying to exercise control over an international corporation; instead of sucking it up and going after the French who buy Nazi materials, they're going after the seller. Bah, humbug.
And don't pull that collective memory bullshit, either. Massive guilt over the collaboration of some 50 years past is not, to my knowledge, a basis for broad, sweeping legislation against the international community. How many people alive in France today were alive during WWII?
The internet is now officially screwed. Whatever happens with this case, a nasty precedent has been set for any and every government.
And, by the way, what's up with that crappy babel-fish translation? "...an offense to the collective memory of a nation profoundly murdered by atrocities". This statement shouldn't be nearly as funny as it sounds. Anybody have a link to the French?
The original story on c't can be found here, mentioning the ongoing legal problems in Germany as well as the Hamburg opening. Executive Software is a member of the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises. Of course they believe that their way is the best: what group doesn't? The group's methods allow only members who follow their business philosophy, which is based on what they called Hubbard's 'religious' texts. Their purpose is to spread the use of their business practices/religious beliefs; hence their licensing of WISE consultants, who must be approved by the organization.
The homepage of their CEO says about as much; that his method of practicing business is to incorporate Scientology. Thus, anyone working for him must also use the same beliefs and methods.
Does this satisfy? Theres also this place, but I recognize a serious logical flaw in taking your evidence from a vehemently anti-scientologist source; let them hang themselves by their own words.
They're also currently being investigated for corporate espionage by the German government. Even if I were for Scientology, this corporation is run by a 'religion' which has been declared illegal in a Germany, and by its nature refuses to separate its beliefs from its corporate practices.
I'd abuse my power to appoint brigadier generals at will and flood the military with my supporters, then stage a government coup to force everyone to become libertarian, damnit!
I still hate socialist boy's tax plan (what little he mentioned), but c'mon; who's going to serve you greasy fries and burgers if we don't provide some incentive?
By the by, for your other/write-in choices, check out this site for your 'other' alternatives (Cruel site of the day). My favorite is the guy who's running so the government wills top stealing his mail.
Even without junkbuster, isn't it pretty easy to ignore? I really don't care how slashdot pays the bills.
No, seriously now; I think many people end up voting for a negative, the person who has the best chances against the candidate they hate most. This alone would drive them away from men like Nader or Browne.
This is the sad state of American politics; it's almost impossible to vote for someone you like, so you end up voting for someone you dislike less.
My definition of a luddite is someone who is skeptical of technology, and openly sees its detrimental effects, without blind-eyed romantic idealism. I consider myself a luddite; I still break out the mechanical typewriter on occasion, and prefer pencils.
Bush and the rest are dangerous not because they decry technology (which I could respect; Harlan Ellison comes to mind), but because they don't understand it.
The problem is not obtaining the books; I have the books and the cards. The problem is finding a machine to read them, or something that will translate them. So far, I've emailed the classics bibliographer here at the U. of C., the author, several archaeologists I know who did something similar on punch-cards back in the 70's, and a few contacts on the Tübingen website for their text-processing program.
And, by the by, this seemed like the sort of strange problem Ask Slashdot would be interested in; this is far from my only resource. If you don't like the question, stop whining and post elsewhere.
Good show; wish you guys could do this more often. But not just for me, or the listeners, but for Kurt's sake. Don't you think his inbox is getting just a tad lonely?
What great precedent! No names, no links...basically anonymous cowards can now turn in troll-posts, and Slashdot will post them. As if I don't actually have enough real corporate tom-foolery to be angry at. I couldn't find any reference to this anywhere else. Cliff, did the thought of checking this story ever cross your mind?
Try this
On the second; I'm not saying that these books are banned (sorry if I implied it). However, all of these are books with strong 'racist overtones'. In the case of Nietzsche and Hegel, both were misinterpreted to justify the nazis' actions. The law, as I understand it, is worded vaguely enough that almost anything objectionable could be a target.
This is not a cultural question, nor is sensitivity to the of world war 2. All countries seems to have their collective head up their asses these days when it comes to internet issues; France just made the latest mistake.
Bringing up the dissemination of child-pornography (which you seem very fond of repeating in almost every post) is equally absurd. Nobody here is arguing for the Nazis or their views. Almost everybody seems to be arguing Voltaire.
P.S. And, unless you're over 50, please stop acting like you've personally had the s.s. storming down your doors. You are no more a victim than I, no matter where you live.