> but you'll end up choosing according to biases imparted to you earlier by society's network.
Sorry, that's just too nice and neat for reality. If all our thoughts are caused by society there should be no new thoughts at all. There would be no innovation. Some will reply that innovation is the result of combining ideas from other societies, but that merely pushes the question back: who came up with the Original Idea(s?)?
Or maybe society just makes me think that way. So unless my society changes I guess there's no reason to argue the point.
Well, I like this better than the last one, that's for certain. I don't agree with it, but it's much easier to read and follow.
I think it's obvious that we use information obtained from other people. I mean, you wouldn't know what day you were born if you hadn't been told by someone else: you have no way of knowing in and of yourself. However I disagree about us being as connected as this article implies. If are all parts of the same tree, why do we all disagree with each other? It is still the human intellect that gathers and processes the information, in your head, apart from everyone else. Yes, you can be influenenced by others, but you can also choose to ignore those influences.
And yes, it is sorta religious: it's no different than the "New Age" religions, which aren't even that new.
So, having said all that: what's the real point of this? Is it really just, "we're all connected together, like fruit in a jello mold" or am I missing some deeper meaning?
I'm really interested in what consulting on the "human aspect of technology" means... if it's what I think you sit around and think about stuff like this all day...
I love philosophy. But I'm personally more interested in things that are practical. I have no problem dealing with theories, and they can be fun, but I also come from a family of carpenters: I'm used to working with my hands, seeing what the heck I'm doing, not just thinking about it. I think that's where this writing fails: It sounds nice (if ya can get past the language) but really doesn't mean anything.
This isn't to say it's bad writing. I don't like the style, but a lot of people don't like mine. Just needs work to get past what my history professors call the So What Factor.
I agree with the folks who think this thing is bad juju. It's basically the same as "Free for noncommercial use" only with that clause expiring. That's not free software.
Anyway my question is, how will this thing work in real life? Say I write SuperWidget 1.0 under the NCL, Bob comes along and modifies it, Larry modifies that. Then Will Fences decides he wants to make a commercial app from Larry's code: does he have to pay Bob and me, too? Seems like that could snowball quickly, making the license something businesses would want to avoid, not embrace.
Slashdot Mirror
So when is Andover gonna spring for /. to put a logo on a rocket? "Geeks in Space" indeed.
AH! I was gonna say that.
But yeah, after a certain point you'll hafta use exponents:
trace-buster^3
trace-buster^27
> >
> but you'll end up choosing according to biases imparted to you earlier by society's network.
Sorry, that's just too nice and neat for reality. If all our thoughts are caused by society there should be no new thoughts at all. There would be no innovation. Some will reply that innovation is the result of combining ideas from other societies, but that merely pushes the question back: who came up with the Original Idea(s?)?
Or maybe society just makes me think that way. So unless my society changes I guess there's no reason to argue the point.
Well, I like this better than the last one, that's for certain. I don't agree with it, but it's much easier to read and follow.
I think it's obvious that we use information obtained from other people. I mean, you wouldn't know what day you were born if you hadn't been told by someone else: you have no way of knowing in and of yourself. However I disagree about us being as connected as this article implies. If are all parts of the same tree, why do we all disagree with each other? It is still the human intellect that gathers and processes the information, in your head, apart from everyone else. Yes, you can be influenenced by others, but you can also choose to ignore those influences.
And yes, it is sorta religious: it's no different than the "New Age" religions, which aren't even that new.
So, having said all that: what's the real point of this? Is it really just, "we're all connected together, like fruit in a jello mold" or am I missing some deeper meaning?
I'm really interested in what consulting on the "human aspect of technology" means... if it's what I think you sit around and think about stuff like this all day...
I love philosophy. But I'm personally more interested in things that are practical. I have no problem dealing with theories, and they can be fun, but I also come from a family of carpenters: I'm used to working with my hands, seeing what the heck I'm doing, not just thinking about it. I think that's where this writing fails: It sounds nice (if ya can get past the language) but really doesn't mean anything.
This isn't to say it's bad writing. I don't like the style, but a lot of people don't like mine. Just needs work to get past what my history professors call the So What Factor.
I agree with the folks who think this thing is bad juju. It's basically the same as "Free for noncommercial use" only with that clause expiring. That's not free software.
Anyway my question is, how will this thing work in real life? Say I write SuperWidget 1.0 under the NCL, Bob comes along and modifies it, Larry modifies that. Then Will Fences decides he wants to make a commercial app from Larry's code: does he have to pay Bob and me, too? Seems like that could snowball quickly, making the license something businesses would want to avoid, not embrace.
--B