Another Canadian political party siphoning off left-leaning voters.
Hopefully, they'll get some otherwise right wing or non-voters over to their party. I'm sure a lot of that has been happening in Sweden.
The Pirate party in Sweden doesn't choose sides on the left/right scale, they just want to give people information and culture for free. That sounds like a very leftist sentiment to me, but if it lures in young men who otherwise would vote for selfishness-and-free-markets-FTW-parties, I'm down with that.
Besides, GP says "dictated from Sweden" as if it was a bad thing. Now, I think Sweden is a crap country with stupid people, but as countries go, it's still perhaps the best.
Indeed. And there's all ready the compatible open source code for it in http://status.net/
But the only good thing about twitter, afaict, is the centralization that allows total strangers worldwide to follow an important topic. Instant reach to whomever it may interest in the world is pretty nifty for raising awareness of shit that affects people.
So, if ISPs got their respective "microblogging" servers, the worldwidedness of it all should be worked out somehow, through some sort of collaboration.
For free markets to have any chance to make the world a better place, i.e. to give people good stuff as cheaply as possible, consumers as a group must be informed. They're not, by and large. Consumers in general consume what the constant barrage of propaganda tells them to consume.
Money is power: Power to form monopolies, power to persuade, power to shape ideas and world views.
"This is one slashvertisement I'd like to read", I thought to myself, but I was disappointed, because I expected lots of pictures and details, which I didn't get.
Very interesting, insightful and informative. Thank you.
I'd just like to disagree with you that people are selfish at heart. People are a very social animal. Some time during our evolution, cooperation has given us means to survive. We've evolved empathy and solidarity. Humans have potential for very bad things, but, at heart, I'd say humans are selfless at heart. For the longest part of our (pre-)history, we've lived in small, pretty egalitarian and peaceful groups, gathering and hunting. We even have the capacity to be kind to total strangers. That's rather remarkable among species on this planet.
(Sure, some laissez fairer could say that if helping others makes you feel good, then even selflessness is selfish. To that one could retort that, "ok, but then there is good and bad kinds of selfishness and if you are not selfless-selfish, but selfish-selfish, then you are all about bad selfishness, monsieur laissez-faire-type.)
"Kids should learn for the love of learning,"
"But they're not. So what shall we do?"
If at all, this scheme should be used as a last resort, for otherwise "hopeless" cases, since if there is any chance to inspire a kid to learn and feel an internal reward for figuring stuff out, that internal reward will be extinguished with external rewards like money.
We shouldn't kill children's love of discovery just because they might find themselves in a real world that works in ways that suck. Learning to work for money isn't a hard lesson to learn. Don't replace the love of learning with the love of money.
Agreed. Also, learning should be its own reward. If you add external incentives to something that has its internal incentives, you run the risk of wiping out the internal reward.
What's wrong with your political system goes far deeper than that.
For example: Why don't you have two runs in the presidental elections if no candidate gets more than half of the votes?
I'm sure there are several other technical issues like this that has made and continues to make it a two party state.
Now, I'm not aware of representative democracy working particularly well anywhere, but two party states are a bit worse than, say, five party states, right? On the other hand, maybe a 34665 party state is worse than a 7 party state? I don't know where the sweet spot of representative democracy might be, but it sure as hell isn't 2, I think.
With all due respect, the gp:s statement sounds sensiblish, and if you think you can knock it right out like that, please give an example of a game that is equally or more for "anyone ranging from someone who doesn't even know what a video game is all the way to competitive level hardcore pros", because chess, go and wow aren't it, not as much as tetris anyways. Ok bejeweled comes closer, but no banana, in my opinion.
And I'm not saying you're wrong. You're probably right, but my feeble mind needs a better example.
What is the incentive to grow and sell food if the UN is going to give food away for free to your customers?
Obviously the food has to come from somewhere. Whether the food you produce is paid for by the UN, the starving poor people or someone else, you still get paid.
Near future, I guess. Because looking at a more distant future, it appears to be a happy place with only free/open source software. If everything evolves, and since proprietary is not optimal, anything proprietary still has evolving to do, ie has a brighter future still ahead. So the future is wide open as in gratis and libre.
Obviously, the future needn't be bright, but the future of computing will only remain proprietary in a future where evil forces use evil force to keep software proprietary (or if we don't get to computing utopia before we collectively snuff it, of course).
I thought it might be the other way around: With math knowledge, but little skills, one would still know what math to tell the computer to do (and find the libraries with the simple apis to do it).
Obviously, someone with skills but without knowledge is in a better position in the long run, since the knowledge is probably easier to aquire than the skills...
Slashdot Mirror
No need for a freedom party. I did a little research and it turns out that all ruling parties i in the west are very much pro freedom, so we're ok.
(/humor)
Hopefully, they'll get some otherwise right wing or non-voters over to their party. I'm sure a lot of that has been happening in Sweden.
The Pirate party in Sweden doesn't choose sides on the left/right scale, they just want to give people information and culture for free. That sounds like a very leftist sentiment to me, but if it lures in young men who otherwise would vote for selfishness-and-free-markets-FTW-parties, I'm down with that.
Besides, GP says "dictated from Sweden" as if it was a bad thing. Now, I think Sweden is a crap country with stupid people, but as countries go, it's still perhaps the best.
Indeed. And there's all ready the compatible open source code for it in http://status.net/
But the only good thing about twitter, afaict, is the centralization that allows total strangers worldwide to follow an important topic. Instant reach to whomever it may interest in the world is pretty nifty for raising awareness of shit that affects people.
So, if ISPs got their respective "microblogging" servers, the worldwidedness of it all should be worked out somehow, through some sort of collaboration.
Mee too! But in my case I think it might just be that my arms are the same length. :)
For free markets to have any chance to make the world a better place, i.e. to give people good stuff as cheaply as possible, consumers as a group must be informed. They're not, by and large. Consumers in general consume what the constant barrage of propaganda tells them to consume.
Money is power: Power to form monopolies, power to persuade, power to shape ideas and world views.
"This is one slashvertisement I'd like to read", I thought to myself, but I was disappointed, because I expected lots of pictures and details, which I didn't get.
Very interesting, insightful and informative. Thank you.
I'd just like to disagree with you that people are selfish at heart. People are a very social animal. Some time during our evolution, cooperation has given us means to survive. We've evolved empathy and solidarity. Humans have potential for very bad things, but, at heart, I'd say humans are selfless at heart. For the longest part of our (pre-)history, we've lived in small, pretty egalitarian and peaceful groups, gathering and hunting. We even have the capacity to be kind to total strangers. That's rather remarkable among species on this planet.
(Sure, some laissez fairer could say that if helping others makes you feel good, then even selflessness is selfish. To that one could retort that, "ok, but then there is good and bad kinds of selfishness and if you are not selfless-selfish, but selfish-selfish, then you are all about bad selfishness, monsieur laissez-faire-type.)
For the kids that can find no intrinsic rewards for doing stuff, external rewards such as in this case could indeed be the only solution.
Curiousity, wanting to learn new things, presumably because learning new things is fun (gives some positive feeling), ie. rewarding.
If at all, this scheme should be used as a last resort, for otherwise "hopeless" cases, since if there is any chance to inspire a kid to learn and feel an internal reward for figuring stuff out, that internal reward will be extinguished with external rewards like money.
Well, by rewarding the kids, you might get them hooked on money and the drug dealing and whatnot will still be there, only now even more enticing.
We shouldn't kill children's love of discovery just because they might find themselves in a real world that works in ways that suck. Learning to work for money isn't a hard lesson to learn. Don't replace the love of learning with the love of money.
I think I should have said "in other words" instead of "also"...
Agreed. Also, learning should be its own reward. If you add external incentives to something that has its internal incentives, you run the risk of wiping out the internal reward.
So, what does it mean?
What's wrong with your political system goes far deeper than that.
For example: Why don't you have two runs in the presidental elections if no candidate gets more than half of the votes?
I'm sure there are several other technical issues like this that has made and continues to make it a two party state.
Now, I'm not aware of representative democracy working particularly well anywhere, but two party states are a bit worse than, say, five party states, right? On the other hand, maybe a 34665 party state is worse than a 7 party state? I don't know where the sweet spot of representative democracy might be, but it sure as hell isn't 2, I think.
With all due respect, the gp:s statement sounds sensiblish, and if you think you can knock it right out like that, please give an example of a game that is equally or more for "anyone ranging from someone who doesn't even know what a video game is all the way to competitive level hardcore pros", because chess, go and wow aren't it, not as much as tetris anyways. Ok bejeweled comes closer, but no banana, in my opinion.
And I'm not saying you're wrong. You're probably right, but my feeble mind needs a better example.
Obviously the food has to come from somewhere. Whether the food you produce is paid for by the UN, the starving poor people or someone else, you still get paid.
Nevermind. I'm an idiot. I thought you were replying to the summary.
I think the world bank aren't really "activists".
Near future, I guess. Because looking at a more distant future, it appears to be a happy place with only free/open source software. If everything evolves, and since proprietary is not optimal, anything proprietary still has evolving to do, ie has a brighter future still ahead. So the future is wide open as in gratis and libre.
Obviously, the future needn't be bright, but the future of computing will only remain proprietary in a future where evil forces use evil force to keep software proprietary (or if we don't get to computing utopia before we collectively snuff it, of course).
yeah right sure whatever. april 1:st sucks. fuck you.
...and, perhaps, marble, if one wants the free/open maps plastered onto a free/open globe.
http://edu.kde.org/marble/
I thought it might be the other way around: With math knowledge, but little skills, one would still know what math to tell the computer to do (and find the libraries with the simple apis to do it).
Obviously, someone with skills but without knowledge is in a better position in the long run, since the knowledge is probably easier to aquire than the skills...
But, I don't know. I have very little of either.