"This is not an attribute of the market itself, but of the legal structure in which it exists. Many free-market advocates are fans of strict liability which would internalize those externalities. The process is not hard -- just remove the tragedy of the commons incentives through privitization." Hello, who gets to own the air and the ocean? The highest bidder? With all due respect, the concept of privitization as a panacea is a crock. You don't remove tragedy-of-the-commons incentives by privitization; you do it by putting a tax on what is now simply "externalized" by corporations. And they can feel free to pass on the expense - just about everything you buy is artificially cheap because of externalities.
"As for bringing back alcohol prohibition, there is a MUCH better chance for tobacco and guns to be outlawed in the next ten years than alcohol"
They sure as hell better outlaw guns before they try to outlaw alcohol (again):-). But don't worry about alcohol, the big corps know that without alcohol to deaden the emptiness, the whole capitalist con-game goes down the toilet.
I don't have time right now to chime in on all of Chris Johnson's excellent points, except to say that I think he's identified several critical issues. In some ways, they hover around the question, what is "value", and how tightly is that wrapped up with "money"?
Anyway, a couple of comments:
"This is so obvious that people don't see it, it's taken for granted that a cartel totally dictates what you can market in these industries."
This to me is THE key to deflating the whole ridiculous quasi-objectivist/libertarian notion of equating laissez-faire capitalism with a free market. There IS no level playing field, there ARE huge barriers to entry, and you WILL be squashed if you try to horn in on the big guys.
"How many really gifted Linux programmers are starving right now?"
A good point, but I would just like to add the thought... should you have to be "really gifted" to avoid starving? What about making a living? Or a decent living. Or a good living. Or... whatever.
That said, I, too, am a (slightly gifted)musician, with a day job (you guessed it - computer stuff). I play in a small band, and we have our small but devoted following. We have NO interest in making it big - we do it because we love it. In fact, we had one guy leave when we started making some decent money, because he thought that subverted the whole joy of it, the whole point of it. We try to make enough money at it to pay for musical toys, gas to make it to the gigs, and blank tape/cd's, but really we play for next to nothing.
OK, speaking of points, what are mine? A couple, actually. People do things like, e.g., make good music, for a host of reasons - surely for more than money. And there's a difference between making a decent living and being obscenely wealthy.
And a parting thought, more relevant than you might think: You'd better believe that contentment is the last thing that our system wants. It wants to divest you of any possibility of authentic relationships to other people or the real world, and then sell you THINGS to fill the gap. The beauty of the system is that THINGS can never fill the gap. It's the perfect con - ya gotta love it!
The minute people are content, the game's over. What do You need to be happy? Have you thought about it, or do you let the Advertising Industy do your thinking for you?
"My mom uses Windows 95 on her Thinkpad. She's used the same install that came on the machine for the four-odd years she's had the machine. It hasn't crashed,"
With all due respect, sir, you are either severely deluded, or a lying sack of shit. To claim that Windows 95 hasn't crashed in 4 years is just ludicrous. I have been in the business of supporting many Windows installations for many, many years, and I simply don't believe you. Wait, there IS one other possibility... you haven't turned on the computer. What a troll.
Here is some very interesting commentary on analog vs. digital and what a stylus does to a vinyl record groove, etc. by none other than Stanley Owsley. Yes, THAT Owsley. (Check out his Ice Age theory on the same page if you want a mind-blower!)
Another way of saying "we don't know what the fuck is going on here". It's exactly like the medieval medical exam question: "Why does opium make people sleep"? The correct answer was "because it contains a dormitive principle". Science very often confuses description with explanation. Ack!
"A perfect map of the universe (That is, an all-encompassing unified-theory type theory) would have to contain itself (and it's effects upon said universe) implying an infinite-regression/involution/exvolution(?) type thing. (That is, infinity."
Reminds me of a quotation that I heard on some PBS science show - I jotted down to use in the Intro of my Master's thesis, but lost the scrap of paper that I wrote it on. Does anyone know who said this (I seem to recall it was a geophysics person, but could be wrong)?:
"It may be that some systems that are so complex that the only usefully predictive model of that system is the system itself."
Which, as a former ecosystem modeller, I came to believe to some degree!
I'm not JK's biggest fan, although I feel it's important to think about some bigger-picture issues with regard to technology, and he at least gets the conversation started. But I must admit that I do not understand the hostility that people seem to have for him. He seems to get judged on a whole separate scale of criteria than anyone else.
That said, your critique of him was, IMHO, completely unjustified: "...each one pontificating about how intellectual and insightful he is and how stupid various people are for disagreeing with his assertions."
Where did you see that? He said (repeatedly:-) that he had no problem with anybody disagreeing with his assertions, that he reads the points, thinks about it, changes his mind occasionally based on the exchange of these ideas, etc. What he objects to is the personal attacks, and I agree with him 100%.
"He even went back to his old, tired arguments about how since he's written a bunch of books and articles that means he's a better writer..."
Where does he say that? He clearly admits to his shortcomings as a writer, explains some of them, hopes to do better, and apologizes for the shoddiness in some of his past work!
"...(and therefore person) than anyone who would say otherwise."
You are way out of line here. He never gives a hint of implying this. Not to get personal (heh), but you seem to be one of those with a Katz obsession. At least, you seem to be responding to something you invented in order to hate it.
"Yeah, I know, "You don't have to read it."
Damn right! His stuff is pretty clearly labelled.
"Yes, and I'd rather not waste the bandwidth on downloading his blurbs or on the aggrivation that I get from accidentally reading them.)"
Accidentally reading them? Give me a break! Besides, what about those of us who enjoy reading about something a little thought provoking with regard to technology? Or is the future of/. going to be all about grits down the pants and dead monkeys?
"Shenzhou appears to be functionally equivalent or superior to a Soyuz. While Soyuz started development in about 1962 it has evolved into a reasonably modern (mid 70s or so) spacecraft."
I think Shenzhou essentially is a Soyuz.
" This places it right next to the shuttle in terms of technology level. "
Huh? The Soyuz is not in the same league with the Shuttle.
My first computer job was working for an outfit that made the first direct-connect, auto-dialing (pulse only) modem for the PET - until then, you used the ol' acoustic coupler.
The PET/CBM line used the IEEE-488 bus for connecting to printers and disk drives, so the modem (300 baud, in a box about 2x7x14") had to do the IEEE-488 handshake. A spinoff product was an IEEE-488 RS-232 adaptor - woo woo!
We sold tons of these things even for a while after the advent of the IBM PC, eventually sending big shipments of them to England, where the CBM was very popular.
We also made the software to drive these things - a combination of BASIC for the, ahem, user interface and machine language for the actual communication loop (BASIC was too slow to keep up with 300 bps). Had a program that could turn your PET into a telex/twx machine. We actually used that a lot for overseas correspondence.
I kept the books using a combination of Visicalc and some BASIC programs I wrote that did a full double-entry bookeeping system.
Reading all the comments in this thread has sure brought back a lot of memories!
"I only have respect for anti-vivesectionists who are vegans- not only in diet, but in clothes, tools, furniture and
cosmetics too. Either animals are something we eat, or something we don't. Any half-way stance is
hypocrytical. "
Well, I disagree. There is a big difference between humanely raising and killing animals for food, and subjecting them to torture. The old "you can't be against animal testing if you aren't a vegan" argument is not logical. I make this comment with the full knowledge that the meat industry is not always the most humane thing going, but the principle stands.
"..and you seem to be equally unknowledgable in the land of Tact."
I was merely responding to your clueless rant, O Tactful One.
"I'm not interested in pointing fingers or a flamewar- "history", such as it is, has been highly corrupted by entities such as the church- there's more under the surface than your average Believer can handle, so of course they're going to scoff at it. From the standpoint of science- this is like asking your uncle if it's okay to breath, knowing full well if you're uncle says "no" and you do anyway, he'll sit on you. I AM young, and if I "get over" anything, it will be Religion and feeling compelled to reply to these sorts of barbs."
You started off with a rather childish and provocative characterization of the history of religion (which includes a lot more than Catholicism, by the way), and then complain about "barbs"?
"If you want to debate science or history, I'm game. If you want to talk religion, scrag off."
Well, if you will look at your message that I originally replied to, it seems that you really _do_ want to talk about religion. It wasn't my idea.
"Finally, biology and ecology -is- just a simple engineering excercise."
Stringing base-pairs into a synthetic DNA molecule is engineering. Understanding the ramifications of tinkering with an ecosystem is not. Nothing mystical or supernatural, mind you, it's just that it's complex beyond our current ability to understand. Maybe someday we'll have the wisdom to tinker wisely, but we sure as hell don't have it now.
I've done a fair amount of ecosystem modeling in my time, and though the models certainly helpful in understanding the gross effects of some variables, their predictive power is rather poor.
I forget who said it (I think it was a geologist), but this is a quote that I think applies:
"It may be that there are some systems so complex that the only predictive model for that system is the system itself."
If you've done any serious work in ecology, this seems to ring true. You just can't foresee the contingencies. Actual reality trumps virtual reality every time.
"I just thought I would point out that the majority of the oxygen that we breathe comes from the ocean, and not from trees."
A popular misconception, but wrong nevertheless. Twice as much oxygen is generated by continental photosynthesis as from marine. Look it up in any good plant physiology text.
"Relax, grow up, get over it. It is not what we CAN do with science that matters, only what we CHOOSE to do with it that counts in the end. All knowledge is at least potentially harmful, but then often so is ignorance."
What an utter crock of shit (the notion of "choice"). Everything that science CAN do, ends up getting done (especially if there's a $$$ in it). Most biological/ecological medding ends up as a total fiasco, one way or the other.
"I'm suggesting that science for the purpose of science is important in our existance if we're ever going to leave this rock and move somewhere else after we destroy it." How about NOT DESTROYING IT? What gives us (in fact, not really "us" at all, just some techno-hubristic-weeny branch of humanity) the right to destroy it? You people are out of your fucking minds! Think about what you just wrote!
"Uhm, Hello. Because nature allows us humans to pro-create. We create another organism anytime a mother has a child. Why would it be any different in creating a new species? "
Slashdot Mirror
"This is not an attribute of the market itself, but of the legal structure in which it exists. Many free-market advocates are fans of strict liability which would internalize those externalities. The process is not hard -- just remove the tragedy of the commons incentives through privitization." Hello, who gets to own the air and the ocean? The highest bidder? With all due respect, the concept of privitization as a panacea is a crock. You don't remove tragedy-of-the-commons incentives by privitization; you do it by putting a tax on what is now simply "externalized" by corporations. And they can feel free to pass on the expense - just about everything you buy is artificially cheap because of externalities.
The entire first chapter was online at the NY Times site - go to their book review section and find the "first chapters" link. Lots of books!
- Steve
They sure as hell better outlaw guns before they try to outlaw alcohol (again) :-). But don't worry about alcohol, the big corps know that without alcohol to deaden the emptiness, the whole capitalist con-game goes down the toilet.
Man o' man, you're easy!
Anyway, a couple of comments:
"This is so obvious that people don't see it, it's taken for granted that a cartel totally dictates what you can market in these industries."
This to me is THE key to deflating the whole ridiculous quasi-objectivist/libertarian notion of equating laissez-faire capitalism with a free market. There IS no level playing field, there ARE huge barriers to entry, and you WILL be squashed if you try to horn in on the big guys.
"How many really gifted Linux programmers are starving right now?"
A good point, but I would just like to add the thought... should you have to be "really gifted" to avoid starving? What about making a living? Or a decent living. Or a good living. Or... whatever.
That said, I, too, am a (slightly gifted)musician, with a day job (you guessed it - computer stuff). I play in a small band, and we have our small but devoted following. We have NO interest in making it big - we do it because we love it. In fact, we had one guy leave when we started making some decent money, because he thought that subverted the whole joy of it, the whole point of it. We try to make enough money at it to pay for musical toys, gas to make it to the gigs, and blank tape/cd's, but really we play for next to nothing.
OK, speaking of points, what are mine? A couple, actually. People do things like, e.g., make good music, for a host of reasons - surely for more than money. And there's a difference between making a decent living and being obscenely wealthy.
And a parting thought, more relevant than you might think: You'd better believe that contentment is the last thing that our system wants. It wants to divest you of any possibility of authentic relationships to other people or the real world, and then sell you THINGS to fill the gap. The beauty of the system is that THINGS can never fill the gap. It's the perfect con - ya gotta love it!
The minute people are content, the game's over. What do You need to be happy? Have you thought about it, or do you let the Advertising Industy do your thinking for you?
All the best,
Steve
With all due respect, sir, you are either severely deluded, or a lying sack of shit. To claim that Windows 95 hasn't crashed in 4 years is just ludicrous. I have been in the business of supporting many Windows installations for many, many years, and I simply don't believe you. Wait, there IS one other possibility... you haven't turned on the computer. What a troll.
Here is some very interesting commentary on analog vs. digital and what a stylus does to a vinyl record groove, etc. by none other than Stanley Owsley. Yes, THAT Owsley. (Check out his Ice Age theory on the same page if you want a mind-blower!)
Here ya go:
Bear's Analog vs. Digital Essay
Snr. Monsado, It's posts like yours that keep me coming back to /. You have made your point with total lucidity and economy. Hat's off!
Another way of saying "we don't know what the fuck is going on here". It's exactly like the medieval medical exam question: "Why does opium make people sleep"? The correct answer was "because it contains a dormitive principle". Science very often confuses description with explanation. Ack!
You must've been tired.
I think that the author is Julian Jaynes. Excellent book, and way ahead of its time, or maybe an excellent product of a cool time.
Reminds me of a quotation that I heard on some PBS science show - I jotted down to use in the Intro of my Master's thesis, but lost the scrap of paper that I wrote it on. Does anyone know who said this (I seem to recall it was a geophysics person, but could be wrong)?:
"It may be that some systems that are so complex that the only usefully predictive model of that system is the system itself."
Which, as a former ecosystem modeller, I came to believe to some degree!
That said, your critique of him was, IMHO, completely unjustified: "...each one pontificating about how intellectual and insightful he is and how stupid various people are for disagreeing with his assertions."
Where did you see that? He said (repeatedly :-) that he had no problem with anybody disagreeing with his assertions, that he reads the points, thinks about it, changes his mind occasionally based on the exchange of these ideas, etc. What he objects to is the personal attacks, and I agree with him 100%.
"He even went back to his old, tired arguments about how since he's written a bunch of books and articles that means he's a better writer..."
Where does he say that? He clearly admits to his shortcomings as a writer, explains some of them, hopes to do better, and apologizes for the shoddiness in some of his past work!
"...(and therefore person) than anyone who would say otherwise."
You are way out of line here. He never gives a hint of implying this. Not to get personal (heh), but you seem to be one of those with a Katz obsession. At least, you seem to be responding to something you invented in order to hate it.
"Yeah, I know, "You don't have to read it."
Damn right! His stuff is pretty clearly labelled.
"Yes, and I'd rather not waste the bandwidth on downloading his blurbs or on the aggrivation that I get from accidentally reading them.)"
Accidentally reading them? Give me a break! Besides, what about those of us who enjoy reading about something a little thought provoking with regard to technology? Or is the future of /. going to be all about grits down the pants and dead monkeys?
No kidding! Just think, computers will be "infinitely small" and "infinitely powerful". So much for language having any meaning.
I think Shenzhou essentially is a Soyuz.
" This places it right next to the shuttle in terms of technology level. "
Huh? The Soyuz is not in the same league with the Shuttle.
The PET/CBM line used the IEEE-488 bus for connecting to printers and disk drives, so the modem (300 baud, in a box about 2x7x14") had to do the IEEE-488 handshake. A spinoff product was an IEEE-488 RS-232 adaptor - woo woo!
We sold tons of these things even for a while after the advent of the IBM PC, eventually sending big shipments of them to England, where the CBM was very popular.
We also made the software to drive these things - a combination of BASIC for the, ahem, user interface and machine language for the actual communication loop (BASIC was too slow to keep up with 300 bps). Had a program that could turn your PET into a telex/twx machine. We actually used that a lot for overseas correspondence.
I kept the books using a combination of Visicalc and some BASIC programs I wrote that did a full double-entry bookeeping system.
Reading all the comments in this thread has sure brought back a lot of memories!
- sgage
TKSeti works really nicely.
Well, I disagree. There is a big difference between humanely raising and killing animals for food, and subjecting them to torture. The old "you can't be against animal testing if you aren't a vegan" argument is not logical. I make this comment with the full knowledge that the meat industry is not always the most humane thing going, but the principle stands.
I was merely responding to your clueless rant, O Tactful One.
"I'm not interested in pointing fingers or a flamewar- "history", such as it is, has been highly corrupted by entities such as the church- there's more under the surface than your average Believer can handle, so of course they're going to scoff at it. From the standpoint of science- this is like asking your uncle if it's okay to breath, knowing full well if you're uncle says "no" and you do anyway, he'll sit on you. I AM young, and if I "get over" anything, it will be Religion and feeling compelled to reply to these sorts of barbs."
You started off with a rather childish and provocative characterization of the history of religion (which includes a lot more than Catholicism, by the way), and then complain about "barbs"?
"If you want to debate science or history, I'm game. If you want to talk religion, scrag off."
Well, if you will look at your message that I originally replied to, it seems that you really _do_ want to talk about religion. It wasn't my idea.
Stringing base-pairs into a synthetic DNA molecule is engineering. Understanding the ramifications of tinkering with an ecosystem is not. Nothing mystical or supernatural, mind you, it's just that it's complex beyond our current ability to understand. Maybe someday we'll have the wisdom to tinker wisely, but we sure as hell don't have it now.
I've done a fair amount of ecosystem modeling in my time, and though the models certainly helpful in understanding the gross effects of some variables, their predictive power is rather poor.
I forget who said it (I think it was a geologist), but this is a quote that I think applies:
"It may be that there are some systems so complex that the only predictive model for that system is the system itself."
If you've done any serious work in ecology, this seems to ring true. You just can't foresee the contingencies. Actual reality trumps virtual reality every time.
You seem to know absolutely jackshit about history, Christianity, Science, or anything else. But you're young - perhaps you'll get over it.
A popular misconception, but wrong nevertheless. Twice as much oxygen is generated by continental photosynthesis as from marine. Look it up in any good plant physiology text.
What an utter crock of shit (the notion of "choice"). Everything that science CAN do, ends up getting done (especially if there's a $$$ in it). Most biological/ecological medding ends up as a total fiasco, one way or the other.
"I'm suggesting that science for the purpose of science is important in our existance if we're ever going to leave this rock and move somewhere else after we destroy it." How about NOT DESTROYING IT? What gives us (in fact, not really "us" at all, just some techno-hubristic-weeny branch of humanity) the right to destroy it? You people are out of your fucking minds! Think about what you just wrote!
You really are clueless, aren't you?