More of those? Which ones and who gets to decide? You? What makes you so much more qualified to do so than people in government?
A good question, but the answer is not so simple IMHO. To take an earlier example, most of those people who are most affected by the Iraq war don't have any influence on the US government (they can not vote for/against them). And I guess even the US public needs more information to decide whom to trust.
So in other words anything that has had public finance needs to be open?
No. Not any information. But more of those with public finance than of other institutions. And I asked that question because you treated wikileaks and the US government on the same level.
Also:
What a childish argument.[...] Right, well in that case I guess your medical records should be made public then. You want to
start the ball rolling and publish them yourself or shall we just get Jesus, sorry , Julian to
do it for you?
Please don't transform it into some kind of personalities. Thank you.
Almost everyone outside US disagrees, and laughs at how Americans yearn for bucolic rural lifestyle [...]
Almost everyone except for me, who live in a city in Europe (although on the less glamorous, Eastern side of the EU). But I agree: longing after rural harmony and destroying that beloved quietness every day driving a big car to the hated city is ironic.
I know shit about fretilizers (sorry, couldn't resist), but AFAIK animal dung too has to be composted (especially chicken's) before use, and according to some anecdotes in China they used to use sewage from "public" privies (but that latter may be just that - an anecdote).
While I share Your feelings about extreme Malthusians (I mean the people, who publicly welcome any catastrophe because it lowers population) - I have yet to meet any "eco-extremists" (or "dark greens" as others like to label those people). In the same time every related discussion is ripe with hate towards e.g. "Al Gore's followers" (rutinely used to those who accept the science of anthropogenic global warming) or those anecdotal "eco-extremists". But it's just my impression, I'm not American (I guess You are) maybe we are just surrounded by different types of people.
That is my main problem with cities in general. You can eliminate pollution, make the city bike- and walk-friendly, reduce crime etc., but living together with tens of thousands of people tends to increase psychological stress. Well at least it increases my level of stress living in a city, but I guess I'm not alone.
Another factor against large cities sounds rather strange, (and I'm not really sure it should be decisive choosing your place of living): resistance to disaster - be it a flood, earthquake or a war. I remember seeing a presentation somewhere from the '50s which recommended developing suburb-like living areas because human casualties would be lower there in case of a nuclear explosion, than in a dense city.
That said I think there are major factors, other than wether you will live near a target if a nuclear war breaks out, or if Gozilla will stomp over your apartment (those monsters just love dense cities:)
Actually I was thinking of chief editors and owners. And of bigger news media, where you flip the voting preferences of 0.1 percent of you viewers by showing the opposing candidate's face from a disadvantageous angle (yes I made that number up).
Deeplinking and "stealing" your stories may hurt you int the short term financially. But - let's face it - the real reason of operating a newspaper or site is to make your audience see the world through your goggles. The more your opinionated news are linked or copied in one, the more influence you have on other people's thoughts, decisions etc.
Yes I'm that cynical (in the case of the news industry at least).
In the 70s they were also predicting a coming ice age.
That has been refuted even here on Slashdot IIRC.
Global Cooling article in Wikipedia says:
"Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming."
Which doesn't mean your statement is necessary false, but you should provide some data supporting it.
What do you mean by "capitalist"? Someone who has capital (how much?)? Someone who blindly believes in an "ism" which promotes free market as the cure for everything? Someone who generally favours market friendly solutions to economic problems?
And the meaning of "free market" have many interpretations too. Especially when applied to the financial sector.
At least you didn't use the word globalization...:)
You just outlawed every search engine! Only the smaller ones i'm afraid. The major established internet search co.-s would have the financial power to make an exeption for themselves in those would-be laws.
I may have watched too much spy movies, but am sure that using X-rays/infrared/radar/ultrasound/etc. you can gain insight into a structure without touching or disassembling it.
Which doesn't necessarily mean that anything like that happened.
and that's why the financial sector is so expensive. To the public at least and in almost all countries. A big knowitall aganecy telling the little dumb citizen whom to trust, and even if they fail there is always the (knowitall) government to pay the bill - from the pocket of the little citizen.
The catch is that you have to trust the regulators who are appointed by a government/president elected by representatives/electors elected through a sometimes complicated process by you. Too many leverages there.
IANABanker but I suspect the last thing a financial regulator would want is a massive "voting with one's feet". Anything that has a slight chance of starting a bank run is seen as a danger. That can be one reason there are so little (public and detailed, comparative) data about data theft, card fraud etc.
(Which is sad but rather a problem of the system not of the regulators).
.Net? No. OOXML? Yes. Didn't you mean ".Net? Yes. OOXML? No." ?
OOXML is a bit stranger for Gnome to get involved in. Surely it's something that apps like Open Office should be concerned about, not the desktop people? They are not only "desktop people". I'm not too familiar with Gnome developement but isn't Gnome Office (Abiword,Gnumeric etc.) part of the Gnome project?... OK, I just checked the Gnome Foundation members list: both Jody Goldberg and Morten Welinder of Gnumeric fame are members. Definitely not just "desktop people".
Aside from the fact that open layout has been in use for hundreds of years elsewhere* I doubt that breaking down the cubicle walls will dramatically increase productivity everywhere. Developers for example need their private space for their work (others wrote about it, if noone cited that article yet).
But if someone works from home (s)he already has that much required personal space at home, and doesn't care if the place is more 'social' in the official office.
By the way that layout sure will spread in the next years due to the catchy words you can attach to them: 'social', 'open', 'collaborate', 'flexible' instead of 'closed', 'walls', and 'cube' (as a boring kind of shape).
*Don't know about you but to me cubeless offices bring the picture of some Scandinavian postal office where the customers can watch the clerk picking his nose.
Innovation is possible in politics too. Look at the monarchies of 400 years ago and the democracies of today (with all their faults). I like to think there is a progress in that field too.
I would generally give credit for a greater diversity of motivations than you seem willing to.
The cause is just a lack of time (and my knowledge of English). The fact that many people innovate out of altruistic motivations doesn't contradict to the notion that human motivations drive technology too. And that together with the fact that technological progress made our life rather easier than harder in the recent centuries just supports the idea that the positive outcome of innovations is not just an accidental side effect of whatever motivations - maybe people are inherently rather "good" (even if far from perfect)?
What has technology got to do with it other than increasing the tyrant to subject ratio?
Uh... I fully agree with that.
But forms of government, economical systems can also be viewed as tools.
Some will claim (neocons for instance) that we can use tyranny to make things better, but it doesn't work that way. Technology, on the other hand is much more legitimately separable from human motivation (there are a variety of motivations that can lead to most technologies.)
I have to admit I overlooked that aspect. Indeed a political philosophy is easier to become a source of motivation in itself than a piece of technology. However I cannot escape the suspicion that the direction of technological and scientific progress is also heavily influenced by human motivations. There's so much talk about how a group of technology changes whole industries or even politics... Also in the case of politics many times I suspect other motivations than just a political philosophy (namely greed).
But your kind of reasoning could also be used inside out, eg: "Mr. Gibson's dark future is a technological failure and not an economical/political one. That nasty future comes from a tyrannical group of technologists who misuse the social system."
What I want to say is technology and politics/economics are all a creature of humans. It's just as misleading blaming "economics" and "politics" instead of the people misusing the system (who are basically all of us), as it is to blame a particular technology for all of our miseries.
Most of the comments on/. are suggesting that the future is giving away your music/book etc. and making money off merchandise etc.
But I suspect, the much better form of "selling" your art would be (and probably will be) just looking for sponsors or patrons. It seems the artist sells her/his soul if he seeks sponsors, but we live in a pluralistic society with many ideologies, philosophies and the corresponding organizations/political parties/churches etc. An artist may choose from a large supply of supporters. And this system has worked for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. Even when only a few monarchs and one church were the only supporters of arts, many great artifacts were born (which doesn't mean I wish those times for today's artists when 99 % of your art had to depict/sing biblical stories or the greatness of XY king).
Slashdot Mirror
More of those? Which ones and who gets to decide? You? What makes you so much more qualified to do so than people in government?
A good question, but the answer is not so simple IMHO. To take an earlier example, most of those people who are most affected by the Iraq war don't have any influence on the US government (they can not vote for/against them). And I guess even the US public needs more information to decide whom to trust.
So in other words anything that has had public finance needs to be open?
No. Not any information. But more of those with public finance than of other institutions. And I asked that question because you treated wikileaks and the US government on the same level.
Also:
What a childish argument.[...] Right, well in that case I guess your medical records should be made public then. You want to start the ball rolling and publish them yourself or shall we just get Jesus, sorry , Julian to do it for you?
Please don't transform it into some kind of personalities. Thank you.
Does the world benefit from knowing what the Americans internally think of various politicians?
Yes it does. In many small countries USA is able to influence internal politics with its economic power.
Is wikileaks an organization financed by the public involved in numerous wars with its armed forces?
Almost everyone outside US disagrees, and laughs at how Americans yearn for bucolic rural lifestyle [...]
Almost everyone except for me, who live in a city in Europe (although on the less glamorous, Eastern side of the EU). But I agree: longing after rural harmony and destroying that beloved quietness every day driving a big car to the hated city is ironic.
Only dead Malthusians are good Malthusians
[...]
I know shit about fretilizers (sorry, couldn't resist), but AFAIK animal dung too has to be composted (especially chicken's) before use, and according to some anecdotes in China they used to use sewage from "public" privies (but that latter may be just that - an anecdote).
While I share Your feelings about extreme Malthusians (I mean the people, who publicly welcome any catastrophe because it lowers population) - I have yet to meet any "eco-extremists" (or "dark greens" as others like to label those people). In the same time every related discussion is ripe with hate towards e.g. "Al Gore's followers" (rutinely used to those who accept the science of anthropogenic global warming) or those anecdotal "eco-extremists". But it's just my impression, I'm not American (I guess You are) maybe we are just surrounded by different types of people.
That is my main problem with cities in general. You can eliminate pollution, make the city bike- and walk-friendly, reduce crime etc., but living together with tens of thousands of people tends to increase psychological stress. Well at least it increases my level of stress living in a city, but I guess I'm not alone.
:)
Another factor against large cities sounds rather strange, (and I'm not really sure it should be decisive choosing your place of living): resistance to disaster - be it a flood, earthquake or a war. I remember seeing a presentation somewhere from the '50s which recommended developing suburb-like living areas because human casualties would be lower there in case of a nuclear explosion, than in a dense city.
That said I think there are major factors, other than wether you will live near a target if a nuclear war breaks out, or if Gozilla will stomp over your apartment (those monsters just love dense cities
Actually I was thinking of chief editors and owners. And of bigger news media, where you flip the voting preferences of 0.1 percent of you viewers by showing the opposing candidate's face from a disadvantageous angle (yes I made that number up).
The Sun is shining like mad, your car has no AC. You have many options:
Deeplinking and "stealing" your stories may hurt you int the short term financially. But - let's face it - the real reason of operating a newspaper or site is to make your audience see the world through your goggles. The more your opinionated news are linked or copied in one, the more influence you have on other people's thoughts, decisions etc.
Yes I'm that cynical (in the case of the news industry at least).
In the 70s they were also predicting a coming ice age.
That has been refuted even here on Slashdot IIRC. Global Cooling article in Wikipedia says:
"Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming."
Which doesn't mean your statement is necessary false, but you should provide some data supporting it.
What do you mean by "capitalist"? Someone who has capital (how much?)? Someone who blindly believes in an "ism" which promotes free market as the cure for everything? Someone who generally favours market friendly solutions to economic problems? And the meaning of "free market" have many interpretations too. Especially when applied to the financial sector. At least you didn't use the word globalization... :)
Butterfingers!
Sorry, I accidentally rated you Troll (was thinking on clicking Infomrative) - now I hope writing here will revert it...
Which doesn't necessarily mean that anything like that happened.
and that's why the financial sector is so expensive. To the public at least and in almost all countries. A big knowitall aganecy telling the little dumb citizen whom to trust, and even if they fail there is always the (knowitall) government to pay the bill - from the pocket of the little citizen.
The catch is that you have to trust the regulators who are appointed by a government/president elected by representatives/electors elected through a sometimes complicated process by you. Too many leverages there.
IANABanker but I suspect the last thing a financial regulator would want is a massive "voting with one's feet". Anything that has a slight chance of starting a bank run is seen as a danger. That can be one reason there are so little (public and detailed, comparative) data about data theft, card fraud etc. (Which is sad but rather a problem of the system not of the regulators).
.Net? No. OOXML? Yes. Didn't you mean ".Net? Yes. OOXML? No." ?OOXML is a bit stranger for Gnome to get involved in. Surely it's something that apps like Open Office should be concerned about, not the desktop people? They are not only "desktop people". I'm not too familiar with Gnome developement but isn't Gnome Office (Abiword,Gnumeric etc.) part of the Gnome project?
Aside from the fact that open layout has been in use for hundreds of years elsewhere* I doubt that breaking down the cubicle walls will dramatically increase productivity everywhere. Developers for example need their private space for their work (others wrote about it, if noone cited that article yet).
But if someone works from home (s)he already has that much required personal space at home, and doesn't care if the place is more 'social' in the official office.
By the way that layout sure will spread in the next years due to the catchy words you can attach to them: 'social', 'open', 'collaborate', 'flexible' instead of 'closed', 'walls', and 'cube' (as a boring kind of shape).
*Don't know about you but to me cubeless offices bring the picture of some Scandinavian postal office where the customers can watch the clerk picking his nose.
But your kind of reasoning could also be used inside out, eg: "Mr. Gibson's dark future is a technological failure and not an economical/political one. That nasty future comes from a tyrannical group of technologists who misuse the social system."
What I want to say is technology and politics/economics are all a creature of humans. It's just as misleading blaming "economics" and "politics" instead of the people misusing the system (who are basically all of us), as it is to blame a particular technology for all of our miseries.
Most of the comments on /. are suggesting that the future is giving away your music/book etc. and making money off merchandise etc.
But I suspect, the much better form of "selling" your art would be (and probably will be) just looking for sponsors or patrons. It seems the artist sells her/his soul if he seeks sponsors, but we live in a pluralistic society with many ideologies, philosophies and the corresponding organizations/political parties/churches etc. An artist may choose from a large supply of supporters. And this system has worked for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. Even when only a few monarchs and one church were the only supporters of arts, many great artifacts were born (which doesn't mean I wish those times for today's artists when 99 % of your art had to depict/sing biblical stories or the greatness of XY king).