Nono, we wait until we have nanoassemblers to rise up against our corporate overlords. That is, nanoassemblers capable of making really fucking big smart bombs.
Huummm... quite right you are. What implications do you think that has for the long-term ascendency of the American economy? Also, do you think there is a connection between this and the generally stunning mediocrity of American popular culture?
Umm... I didn't notice Alien54 placing blame on anybody, just describing a phenomenon in the world. Maybe my reading comprehension skills are low, but it seemed to my like he was referring to the exact type of situation you described there. Lighten up, man, and don't be so quick to go around assigning blame.
Isn't it time we figure out a different economic system that is sustainable, and less violent?
No, it isn't. You're right, in general; capitalism is a horrible, kludgey way to distribute resources. I like your Bill Hicks quote, so here's another one, from Iain M. Banks:
The market, for all its (profoundly inelegant) complexities, remains a crude and essentially blind system, and is - without the sort of drastic amendments liable to cripple the economic efficacy which is its greatest claimed asset - intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between simple non-use of matter resulting from processal superfluity and the acute, prolonged and wide-spread suffering of conscious
beings.
(Not that Banks is an expert on these things, and not that he was necesssarily even serious when he wrote that [it's from an essay on his fiction], but I think he's right.)
Anyway, capitalism will dissapear eventually, if we don't nuke ourselves to nothingness first (in which case capitalism will dissapear in a rather differnt sense), but it won't be until we, the whole of humanity, become much more enlightened; really, it probably won't dissapear until we essentially bring an end to material scarcity. I'll leave it to you to speculate on when that will happen.
In the meantime, why don't you try doing something more immediately useful, like trying to develop better energy sources than fossil fuels or bringing an end to organized religion?
Yeah, but "we" did it, in large part, by raping the hell out of any non-euoropean civilizations we found. Not to say that the history of Westen economic development is solely one of looting and exploiting, not by a long shot (and certainly not to say that present-day members of developed countries are guilty of anything, or have a duty to make reparations for history), but it also wouldn't do to just ignore this part of history. This part of the West's path just isn't open to the present-day third world - there isn't anyone for them to exploit, and even if there were, it would defeat the whole point of the exercise, which is to raise the status of the whole world. And it's an important enough part of that path that the development of the rest of the world will have to look considerably different. Any other easy answers?
I haven't read SiaSL (or any Heinlein for that matter, although I really really should; any suggestions for which book to start with?), but did these Witnesses just walk around all day recording everything they saw in case it could be needed in court? How is that different from having video cameras on every street corner that save what they record in a central location only accessible by the courts? I'm curious because you said "...this would be a good thing", and I don't think there would be many people on/. supporting universal surveillance by video cameras, so I'm wondering what makes the Witnesses fundamentally different? Should I just go read SiaSL?
What about media copyrights? A song, movie, book, whatever in digital form is, after all, just a big old binary number. Is it right to say "You may make a copy of that number, but not that other number."? Based on the logic in your post, all copyright laws should be abolished.
... the thing is, the logic in your post is unimpeachable. So it would seems that one of two things has to happen: the courts will remain (perhaps willfully) ignorant of computation theory, or the whole idea of IP will have to be reexamined and probably tossed out entirely. Which do you think is more likely?
Who exactly takes issue with this? How many non-geeks in the USA are even aware that Ranma 1/2 exists? Nobody shows it on TV, do they? It isn't that I don't believe you, I'm just curious.
Right; likewise, people can be religiously devoted to Linux. However, there's nothing inherent in atheism that demands this kind of devotion, any more than there is in Linux. Read the next-to-last line in
the parent to your post, then try again.
So why does this only apply to Microsoft? It's just as much a violation if Sun or Id or anyone else uses GPL code in a proprietary product. Should everyone who writes closed-source software abstain from working on OSS projects?
Or have we reached the point where MS is really the only proprietary software company that matters?
So how many "regional issues" are important in this election? Social Security? Health Care? Defense? Abortion? Which one of these fails to be relevant to the whole country? Furthermore, Bushgore is not "trying to hit as many states as possible". They're putting their face on the TVs of the 10 or so "swing states" where the outcome is not already decided.
And are you arguing that it's a good thing that only two parties have a substantial voice in the federal government? Yeah, it's wonderful that the system is stacked against divergent viewpoints.
The electoral college system was a good idea 200 years ago, but there's no need for it anymore. Unfortunately, the chances of the electoral college system being done away with anytime soon are about as good as the chances of Nader getting a majority of the electoral vote this year.
So amendments don't count now? Yeah, forget freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, they're just amendments.
Not that being in the constitution makes something right, necessarily, but since Browne keeps talking about the "constitutional limits" of government, it kind of gives the impression that he agrees with everything in the Constitution.
Are you kidding? Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the whole problem here is that the First Amendment is getting trashed in the name of "saving the children". I would very much hope that when a law mandating universal use of censorware gets passed (and it's really only a matter of time), it gets shot down in the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. Of course, depending on the outcome of the election in November, we might be stuck with a Supreme Court that thinks that "there ought to be limits to freedom" because the internet turns children's hearts dark.
Also, no offence, but mandatory self-censorship, which is what your idea about.xxx TLDs really is, is a terrible idea. While we're at it, let's just add a TLD for political views which the Republicrats don't like, and one for religious views which they'd rather not have their kids thinking about in the Bible Belt. Then we can just get rid of all that, evil, evil, heart-darkening internet filth all at once and be left with nothing but goodthink. Now, I agree that we need more TLDs, and.xxx would be a cool one, provided nobody is forced to mark their content as "bad".
When you put it that way, I think we basically do agree, and the semantics are just confusing. The stumbling words, methinks, are "right" and (the notoriously tricky) "exist".
I think it's fair to say that governments exist in this sense: people in a group tend to behave in a particular patterned, predictable way. I absolutely, 100% agree with you that governments do not exist in the sense that theists think God exists: as an entity which is intangible and inaccessible, yet "real" in the sense that any hunk of physical matter is "real" (incedentally, I think theists are generally full of crap). It occurs to me, now, actually, that the religion-metaphor works pretty well. A lot of people believe that "government", in the sense that you and I don't believe in it, exists, and that belief perpetuates the pattern of behavior which I refer to as "government", which I believe exists in a meaningful way. In just the same way, people believe that "God" exists, and this belief perpetuates the existance of "religion", which is just another pattern of human behavior. So I guess the real confusion comes from using the word "government" to refer to two distinctly different things. Ah, philosophy is fun, fun, fun.
So maybe you think this is a useless definition of "government". That's fine, but I suggest you at consider this view of government, and think about what views it leads to, since you seem to find this type of inquiry genuinely interesting, and thinking about things a different way never hurts, even if you don't agree with it. Particularly, if you think about government this way, it's hard to make the case that governments have special rights to do certain things which people don't have otherwise. Of course, questions about just what "rights" are, and what rights people have, are ludicrously difficult, and I'm tired, so I'm not even going to try to go into it here.
So, now I'm convinced that you actually know what you're talking about, and aren't just insane. That makes you much less fun to argue with:) I guess we could still argue about whether the fact that "god-gov't" doesn't exist is a good reason to not participate in the system which does exist (which is, I think, how this discussion got started). Unless you live on a mountain, by yourself, (which I assume you don't, unless you're a hermit with a net connection) you have to deal with the behavior of the people around you.
So you don't believe in computer programs? I don't mean code listings, which are just ink and paper, or RAM chips and CPUs, which are just plastic and silicon. Sure, you can see the effects of the program, the words on your monitor or whatnot, but you can also see the effects of the government (the guys with guns kicking down your door when you don't pay your taxes). Obviously, then, computer programs don't exist, since I can't see them or feel them. People may "abide by the notion" that C++ exists, but that doesn't make it a "real" part of "objective reality", eh?
BTW, I'm not saying that you should vote or even change your views. I think the belief you hold is fascinating and contains some truths that a lot of people don't get; but I think you're missing the forest for the trees.
Are you sure that's what he's saying? I thought his big thing was that the whole federal government, including Congress, should stay out of these things. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the president should be all powerful, outside of Cthulu and Vader. If I'm wrong, some Libertarian may feel free to set me straight.
Ok, there are a couple points here. First, I agree that I don't think extended touring would be much fun. And guess what? I don't tour extensively, and don't ever plan to. There are lots of things I could do, but I don't, because I think doing them would suck. There are some people who enjoy touring. If you (or Courtney Love, or whoever) doen't like it, then get a different fucking job and stop whining about how much your life sucks. Second, I also agree that touring is unprofitable. Guess what that means? It means the system is broken, and needs to change. And change it will, I think, unless the RIAA has their way and makes change illegal. The system now isn't making anybody happy, except for the record execs.
Is it just me, or do all discussions of Napster or IP (such as this one) degenerate into "I'm right, you're wrong, so deal with it fuckhead!" really quickly?
And that means that RMS is the only person who understands the LGPL? Seriously, I have a lot of respect for RMS and his accomplishments, and I even agree with a lot of his ideas, but if I was trying to get something useful like this done, I'd stay as far away from him as possible. He's a genius, but he's insane.
But, ya see, the thing is this: Sony doesn't make money on the sale of PS2 boxes. They lose money on the sale of each machine, in fact. They recoup this money by selling licenses. Would you rather pay $900 for a PS2 so that Sony can make money and open the API? I thought not.
Of course, that isn't to say that this business model is the only one possible. If you haven't already, check out Indrema for a possible alternative. Nobody's sure that Indrema won't crash and burn as soon as it gets off the ground, however.
There's a very real fear that Gore wants his legacy to be the draconian elimination of pollution at the expense of a modern industrial society, and zero pop g to be his legacy.
So what's wrong with this? You don't think there might be a better alternative to the environmentally hostile industrial practices we've engaged in for a century? And I think zero population growth would be great.
Also, what do you think Junior's legacy would be? An end to social mobility in America?
Please tell me you aren't serious. Go tell the average voter that it's easy to "just use squid as a proxy and log in as root to read the e-mail", and watch the blank expression on her face. The point, as one of the candidates (I think Gore) pointed out, is that if the software is so complicated that you need your kids' help setting it up, what the hell's the point?
Slashdot Mirror
Nono, we wait until we have nanoassemblers to rise up against our corporate overlords. That is, nanoassemblers capable of making really fucking big smart bombs.
Huummm... quite right you are. What implications do you think that has for the long-term ascendency of the American economy? Also, do you think there is a connection between this and the generally stunning mediocrity of American popular culture?
Umm... I didn't notice Alien54 placing blame on anybody, just describing a phenomenon in the world. Maybe my reading comprehension skills are low, but it seemed to my like he was referring to the exact type of situation you described there. Lighten up, man, and don't be so quick to go around assigning blame.
This smells a little like a troll, but I'll bite.
Isn't it time we figure out a different economic system that is sustainable, and less violent?
No, it isn't. You're right, in general; capitalism is a horrible, kludgey way to distribute resources. I like your Bill Hicks quote, so here's another one, from Iain M. Banks:
The market, for all its (profoundly inelegant) complexities, remains a crude and essentially blind system, and is - without the sort of drastic amendments liable to cripple the economic efficacy which is its greatest claimed asset - intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between simple non-use of matter resulting from processal superfluity and the acute, prolonged and wide-spread suffering of conscious beings.
(Not that Banks is an expert on these things, and not that he was necesssarily even serious when he wrote that [it's from an essay on his fiction], but I think he's right.)
Anyway, capitalism will dissapear eventually, if we don't nuke ourselves to nothingness first (in which case capitalism will dissapear in a rather differnt sense), but it won't be until we, the whole of humanity, become much more enlightened; really, it probably won't dissapear until we essentially bring an end to material scarcity. I'll leave it to you to speculate on when that will happen.
In the meantime, why don't you try doing something more immediately useful, like trying to develop better energy sources than fossil fuels or bringing an end to organized religion?
Yeah, but "we" did it, in large part, by raping the hell out of any non-euoropean civilizations we found. Not to say that the history of Westen economic development is solely one of looting and exploiting, not by a long shot (and certainly not to say that present-day members of developed countries are guilty of anything, or have a duty to make reparations for history), but it also wouldn't do to just ignore this part of history. This part of the West's path just isn't open to the present-day third world - there isn't anyone for them to exploit, and even if there were, it would defeat the whole point of the exercise, which is to raise the status of the whole world. And it's an important enough part of that path that the development of the rest of the world will have to look considerably different. Any other easy answers?
I haven't read SiaSL (or any Heinlein for that matter, although I really really should; any suggestions for which book to start with?), but did these Witnesses just walk around all day recording everything they saw in case it could be needed in court? How is that different from having video cameras on every street corner that save what they record in a central location only accessible by the courts? I'm curious because you said "...this would be a good thing", and I don't think there would be many people on /. supporting universal surveillance by video cameras, so I'm wondering what makes the Witnesses fundamentally different? Should I just go read SiaSL?
What about media copyrights? A song, movie, book, whatever in digital form is, after all, just a big old binary number. Is it right to say "You may make a copy of that number, but not that other number."? Based on the logic in your post, all copyright laws should be abolished.
... the thing is, the logic in your post is unimpeachable. So it would seems that one of two things has to happen: the courts will remain (perhaps willfully) ignorant of computation theory, or the whole idea of IP will have to be reexamined and probably tossed out entirely. Which do you think is more likely?
Who exactly takes issue with this? How many non-geeks in the USA are even aware that Ranma 1/2 exists? Nobody shows it on TV, do they? It isn't that I don't believe you, I'm just curious.
So how do you make Free Software suck less? Should I be able to sue Linus when the kernel crashes? Or is all FS perfect already?
Right; likewise, people can be religiously devoted to Linux. However, there's nothing inherent in atheism that demands this kind of devotion, any more than there is in Linux. Read the next-to-last line in the parent to your post, then try again.
Or have we reached the point where MS is really the only proprietary software company that matters?
And are you arguing that it's a good thing that only two parties have a substantial voice in the federal government? Yeah, it's wonderful that the system is stacked against divergent viewpoints.
The electoral college system was a good idea 200 years ago, but there's no need for it anymore. Unfortunately, the chances of the electoral college system being done away with anytime soon are about as good as the chances of Nader getting a majority of the electoral vote this year.
So amendments don't count now? Yeah, forget freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, they're just amendments.
Not that being in the constitution makes something right, necessarily, but since Browne keeps talking about the "constitutional limits" of government, it kind of gives the impression that he agrees with everything in the Constitution.
Also, no offence, but mandatory self-censorship, which is what your idea about .xxx TLDs really is, is a terrible idea. While we're at it, let's just add a TLD for political views which the Republicrats don't like, and one for religious views which they'd rather not have their kids thinking about in the Bible Belt. Then we can just get rid of all that, evil, evil, heart-darkening internet filth all at once and be left with nothing but goodthink. Now, I agree that we need more TLDs, and .xxx would be a cool one, provided nobody is forced to mark their content as "bad".
I think it's fair to say that governments exist in this sense: people in a group tend to behave in a particular patterned, predictable way. I absolutely, 100% agree with you that governments do not exist in the sense that theists think God exists: as an entity which is intangible and inaccessible, yet "real" in the sense that any hunk of physical matter is "real" (incedentally, I think theists are generally full of crap). It occurs to me, now, actually, that the religion-metaphor works pretty well. A lot of people believe that "government", in the sense that you and I don't believe in it, exists, and that belief perpetuates the pattern of behavior which I refer to as "government", which I believe exists in a meaningful way. In just the same way, people believe that "God" exists, and this belief perpetuates the existance of "religion", which is just another pattern of human behavior. So I guess the real confusion comes from using the word "government" to refer to two distinctly different things. Ah, philosophy is fun, fun, fun.
So maybe you think this is a useless definition of "government". That's fine, but I suggest you at consider this view of government, and think about what views it leads to, since you seem to find this type of inquiry genuinely interesting, and thinking about things a different way never hurts, even if you don't agree with it. Particularly, if you think about government this way, it's hard to make the case that governments have special rights to do certain things which people don't have otherwise. Of course, questions about just what "rights" are, and what rights people have, are ludicrously difficult, and I'm tired, so I'm not even going to try to go into it here.
So, now I'm convinced that you actually know what you're talking about, and aren't just insane. That makes you much less fun to argue with :) I guess we could still argue about whether the fact that "god-gov't" doesn't exist is a good reason to not participate in the system which does exist (which is, I think, how this discussion got started). Unless you live on a mountain, by yourself, (which I assume you don't, unless you're a hermit with a net connection) you have to deal with the behavior of the people around you.
So you don't believe in computer programs? I don't mean code listings, which are just ink and paper, or RAM chips and CPUs, which are just plastic and silicon. Sure, you can see the effects of the program, the words on your monitor or whatnot, but you can also see the effects of the government (the guys with guns kicking down your door when you don't pay your taxes). Obviously, then, computer programs don't exist, since I can't see them or feel them. People may "abide by the notion" that C++ exists, but that doesn't make it a "real" part of "objective reality", eh?
BTW, I'm not saying that you should vote or even change your views. I think the belief you hold is fascinating and contains some truths that a lot of people don't get; but I think you're missing the forest for the trees.
Are you sure that's what he's saying? I thought his big thing was that the whole federal government, including Congress, should stay out of these things. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the president should be all powerful, outside of Cthulu and Vader. If I'm wrong, some Libertarian may feel free to set me straight.
Crap! So my identical twin and I are the same individual?
Ok, there are a couple points here. First, I agree that I don't think extended touring would be much fun. And guess what? I don't tour extensively, and don't ever plan to. There are lots of things I could do, but I don't, because I think doing them would suck. There are some people who enjoy touring. If you (or Courtney Love, or whoever) doen't like it, then get a different fucking job and stop whining about how much your life sucks. Second, I also agree that touring is unprofitable. Guess what that means? It means the system is broken, and needs to change. And change it will, I think, unless the RIAA has their way and makes change illegal. The system now isn't making anybody happy, except for the record execs.
Is it just me, or do all discussions of Napster or IP (such as this one) degenerate into "I'm right, you're wrong, so deal with it fuckhead!" really quickly?
Fine, don't tour. Nobody's making you. I don't think I'd go to see you anyway. But don't expect to make a lot of money from music any other way. Deal?
And that means that RMS is the only person who understands the LGPL? Seriously, I have a lot of respect for RMS and his accomplishments, and I even agree with a lot of his ideas, but if I was trying to get something useful like this done, I'd stay as far away from him as possible. He's a genius, but he's insane.
Of course, that isn't to say that this business model is the only one possible. If you haven't already, check out Indrema for a possible alternative. Nobody's sure that Indrema won't crash and burn as soon as it gets off the ground, however.
So what's wrong with this? You don't think there might be a better alternative to the environmentally hostile industrial practices we've engaged in for a century? And I think zero population growth would be great.
Also, what do you think Junior's legacy would be? An end to social mobility in America?
Please tell me you aren't serious. Go tell the average voter that it's easy to "just use squid as a proxy and log in as root to read the e-mail", and watch the blank expression on her face. The point, as one of the candidates (I think Gore) pointed out, is that if the software is so complicated that you need your kids' help setting it up, what the hell's the point?
Try again, smart guy. These links point to Wise County, Virginia. The county in question is Wise County, North Carolina.