Your pitiful attempts at humanization have only begun in the last 40 years or so - whereas other parts of the world have gotten over it and started getting along 100's of years ago - in the case of Australia, helping ones mates was the only way to survive *yourself* for hundreds of years.
Hundreds of years? Talking about the Australian Aboriginies I take it... Seeing Asutralia had its 100th birthday (since Federation) just this year...
Guess what? Everyone that complained about GCC 2.96 being broken (and not reading http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html) despite the fact that their code wasn't C99 complient STILL WON'T COMPILE. Now you can't complain that your code won't work because it's a developmental compiler, you'll actually have to fix it. Numerous examples of this are listed at the above URL, I'd highly suggest you try it out. I have a feeling quite a few people are gonna be red in the face over this one.;-)
That's quite humourous...
Given that the first 'correct code' example is wrong I wouldn't put to much trust in the rest...
It is 'int main' in C++ not 'main', god damn it.
I've been using the snapshots og gcc 3.0 for a while now, precisely because it is more standards compliant.
From the C perspective, what's wrong with non C99 compliant code. People still use K&R C, because it
is more portable.
Hint: I wasn't being entirely serious, but there was a point to my little rant. It's *really difficult* to escape crap American pop culture in Australia, because it's everywhere you look and crowding out our own voice (mainly because it's cheaper to import yours than produce our own), whereas Americans can disappear back into their own comfort zone and ignore the rest of the world any time they feel like it.
That's because American studios/producers/whatever are either much smarter than our ones, or much bigger and thus their standover tactics work...
You want the rights to show , yes we can sell you that, it comes in this package which includes 500 of the worst shows we have ever made.
So the lucky Australian TV station gets the good show it wants and 500 crappy shows as well. Now its not going to spend more money when it has got all these hours of TV it can run against the other crap the other stations got bundled with their good imports...
Oh, and we've got fighter planes ready to destroy any vessel carrying Paul Hogan or Olivia Neutron-Bomb back from LA:)
A better idea might be to force them to land in NZ. That'll teach them to disband thier airforce...
So, copyright is a bad thing. Copyleft is a good thing. Nothing new here.
If you read the article you might have noticed that he didn't say that at all. In fact he supported copyright in a form that is arguably more in line with the USA's constitution.
But, what about this FSF response. Why does it have a copyright? Shouldn't it be copyleft?
It looks like RMS is going over to the other side. I'm sure that Microsoft has something to do with this.
The response is copyright because modifying it served no purpose. Modifying it would allow people like you to try and distort the position the FSF is taking on the issue. Instead it says:
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
If you learnt to read and then actually read the transcript you might find the following in it:
The second class of work is works whose purpose is to say what certain people think. Talking about those people is their purpose. This includes, say, memoirs, essays of opinion, scientific papers, offers to buy and sell, catalogues of goods for sale. The whole point of those works is that they tell you what somebody thinks or what somebody saw or what somebody believes. To modify them is to misrepresent the authors; so modifying these works is not a socially useful activity. And so verbatim copying is the only thing that people really need to be allowed to do.
So RMS actually practices what he preaches. In my book that is a good (and even rare) thing. You don't have to agree with what he preaches, but you should at least try and get your facts straight.
Actually I noticed my karma had somehow through no fault of my own got to double digits...
Thought I'd get modded down a bit to compensate. Since this is slashdot voice an opinion that is pro copyright (unless it's 'open source' of course) and get modded down...
My karma is still above 9, someone mod this down please...
(I actually have mod points right now, but since you can't post and mod to the same story, I guess I can't mod myself down...)
This is for a good reason. Console software is optimized for a particular television hardware standard. European games are optimized for 50 fps PAL, while North American and Japanese games run on 60 fps NTSC (that is, until 2006 when the USian FCC kills NTSC). Games that don't conform to the television will fall out of sync and produce a scrambled picture.
Since the law is Australian and it's hard to find a new TV that doesn't support at least PAL50 and PAL60 (the cheap way of converting NTSC to PAL is to convert it to PAL format but at 60fps) in Australia I don't think that applies here. My cheap, five year old TV supports PAL50, PAL60 and NTSC just fine.
My cheap VCR plays NTSC and PAL just fine.
My (relatively) cheap DVD players plays NTSC and PAL just fine.
My TV capture card captures PAL and NTSC just fine.
I don't need some big brother company protecting me from scrambled pictures, that don't exist anyway.
The second case, modify vs. append: To me the latter is just a special case of the former. I personally see no reason why one should be treated differently from the other. If you have a compelling reason why someone should be allowed to append data to a file, but not modify the data that's already in the file, I'd certainly like to hear it.
Because you don't want people modifying or deleting the contents of the file. They do need to add things to it though. Log files are the obvious example. Though the property can be useful for other things as well. Leaving an audit trail of messages or whatever...
and render the image and/or HTML on the page would be a wonderful addition to the command-line toolset. However, the ability to work
in text-only mode is a critical part of the appeal of Unix.
That's the way I would like to see it. Basically the opposite of the articles idea. Instead of having CLI programs also support a graphical interface, make graphical programs support interations with CLI programs....
It can't be too difficult, plan9 did it a long time ago after all... Then again I'm a lowly perl/C++ program and not a kernel hacker/graphics hacker/windowing system hacker/whatever so what do I know...
I want to be able to say:
wc -w/somepath/window/1
And have get the number of words currently in the window with ID 1 (which might be a text editor with my thesis open or something - of course there are issues as to does it just the text currently visible or the whole files text)...
cat somefile >/somepath/window/new
Should open a window with the text of somefile in it...
rm/somepath/window/1
Could close the window with ID of 1.
cp/somepath/window/1 foo
Could save a copy of the web page I'm viewing in the web browser with window ID of 1...
Take the 'everything if a file' concept a bit further and turn the windowing system into a file system (as an alternative way of interacting with it)...
echo "20dd" >/somepath/window/1/cmd
Could send 20dd to the aplication running in window 1, and vi would delete some stuff...
But I'm not going to code it so I'll shut up about it now...
Also, when your mailbox grows to thousands of messages, the wildcard expansion in the shell ('*' in your example) may
overflow or truncate, and you may not actually scan all the messages. Yes, you can resort to foreach, but then not only
are you opening zillions of files, you're discretely launching 'grep' a zillion times as well.
Modern shells and systems cope with reasonably large shell command lines.
I use nmh so all each mail is in a seperate file, the biggest folder I have has 18958 messages in it at the moment (it's a mailing list that I've been subscribed to for a few years).
grep whatever * works fine in the folder's directory...
Your comment about speed is very true though.
grep whatever * takes over 6 times as long as grep whatever foo (where cat * | cmp - foo).
That's 1:50 as opposed to 17 seconds.
However, I glimpseindex my Mail folder early every morning (which I must admit chews about 50Mb of disk space just for the.glimpse* files - then again the mail takes up about 550Mb). Which means most of the searches I end up doing are reasonably fast (obviously searching for 'a' or something will take a _long_ time)
>My second comment is more a query. Are there
>header files available which make sure that
>strcpy and friends can't be used? It would go a
>way to helping if you could use these headers and
>WARNING:STRCPY USED. COMPILE ABORTED would pop up
>as appropriate. It wouldn't be a final fix but it
>would help and might get programmers out of the
>habit of using these awful functions in the first
>place.
strcpy is not an 'awful function'. strcpy is the wrong function to use if you do not know the length of the source string. If you know the length and it small enough to not overflow the array then strcpy if the right function.
That is a common case. Maybe you are setting a string to one of a bunch of values you have in an array via an index, you know the lengths, you know
the destination is big enough for the biggest one, thus strcpy is the right tool...
The above is not good code. Have you read the spec on what strncpy does? That will copy the characters 'h', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o' followed by 9995 '\0' characters into foo.
Wasting time copying 9995 '\0's that will never be seen by the rest of the code is not in my opinion a good thing to do...
strncpy is the best function to use in the general case, strcpy is often a better solution for a large number of specific cases (those where the lengths are known)...
>Apparently, lots of animals have no qualms about
>eating their offspring: crocodiles being one,
>famous, example
Crocodiles carry their young in their mouths from the hatchery to the water. That is not the same as eating them.
There are these cool frogs whose tadpoles live in puddles. Some of them grow bigger and begin to eat the other tadpoles.
It's a great way of maximising the resource usage, since the puddle will dry up soon enough. More mouths mean they eat more of the resources in a given time, and by some tadpoles eating other tadpoles, they get those resources. That way they can grow fast enough to make it out of the pond before it dries up.
The worst part is the "being a mother" thing. There are too many women who are only in a career "until i want to have a baby."
When you hire a man for a job, you don't have to worry about him deciding he doesn't want to hold a job for the rest of his life 6 months after you hire him.
How many male programmers stay in the same job for more than six months these day anyway?
They also tend to change often and contain material the censors would like to censor... like political views, rants about the evils of censorship, and of course the occasional pirated mp3 and even a picture of a naked person....
Dickinson: They may be copyrightable subject matter, as dance is, but they're not patentable subject matter.
Since I know nothing about US copyright and patent law (not living in the US after all)...
Are the sets of things that can be patented and things that can be copyrighted mutually exclusive? Or can you patent the 'process' and copyright a specific 'implementation' of it?
I'm guessing the second, since it's all a conspiracy after all;)
If it's the first, does that mean it is legal to somehow get your hands on the code for GIF compression or for Final Fantasy, and then use that code in your own project in a different domain so that the patent is not infringed? Since the code must be public domain since it can't be copyright as it is patented...
perl to be terse and easy to write. Finally, consider this python statement: x=['a','b',{'c':'d','e':['f','g']},['h',['i','j']] ]. I admit that perhaps I'm not the swiftest perl programmer ever, but it is certainly not that easy to make a data structure which is a list of strings, hashes of strings and lists, and lists of lists in perl.
You mean like: @x=('a','b',{'c'=>'d','e'=>['f','g']},['h',['i','j ']]);
Looks almost the same to me... Coule get it even closer with: $x=['a','b',{'c'=>'d','e'=>['f','g']},['h',['i','j ']]];
So we write it the same way in perl and python.
As for the rest of your post you really should take a look at 'Object Oriented Perl' by Damian Conway. I think you'll find perl does everything you could want from an OO design point of view simply and painlessly.
Have you ever tried to read befunge, or brainf***? I know these languages, and this is certainly NOT true for them. Perl also makes heavy use of punctuation marks to mean things which are not only not immediately obvious, they can be confusing. In fact, a quote from Larry Wall himself is "admittedly, readability suffers..."
>>I'm amazed human rights organisations have not >>stood up for the right of the defendant to be >>tried by proper licensed professionals.
>So why not do away with juries altogether? The >lawyers and judges are all certified, surely that >makes them elite enough to decide the fate of >the accused.
Heck, why not just let the police do it. Just add a certification test to their training...
That would save some of the money spent on the justice department. Just let the police drop their supects off at the local maximum security prison. No judges, no lawyers. Just good old fashioned martial law.
Re:The reason is poverty!
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
> I dunno, color me silly... but it would seem > to me that if the chance of my child dying > were greated, I'd be LESS inclined to want > to suffer through that.
Not if your life depended on having a few children survive. If the odds are against you, spread your chances around. Maybe just one of the ten children will survive.
> As far as If you don't want over population, end > poverty! statement goes. Bullshit.
Why don't you do some research instead of just assuming that your views muct be right.
Look at the history of any first world country you like. See how as the level of poverty was reduced the level of population growth declined.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone in India.
There is no welfare available for you. You have no pension. You have no savings. You spend everything you earn on necessities, or maybe you are a subsistance farmer.
One day you will be unable to work, when that happens you will have no income, and no food. You will starve to death.
The only way to make sure this doesn't happen is to have a child who will support you when you are unable to support yourself.
However, the infant mortality rate is high, and disease is common. If your children all die you will starve to death. The solution is to have lots of children, one of them may survive.
Most species have this response to high death rates. It makes sense.
You in your wisdom no that having less children will actually be better. There will be less mouths to feed, there will be less resource use, etc, etc.
However, on an individual level it is not true. As an individual I am better off having as many children as possible. Blame evolution for this desire to live and pass on my genes.
It's the same problem as a common field, or gold mine, or fishing lake.
Say there is a lake that can support the fishing of 1000 fish per [time period]. Say you can make $10 per fish. Say you can catch 100 fish perl [time period]. Say there are 100 other people just like you around this same lake.
What do you do?
Do you catch 10 fish. That way you are taking your 'quota'. However, everyone else isn't so nice, they catch 100 fish. The fish population is destroyed.
You made $100. The other people made $1000. The fish population is destroyed. There shall be no more fish.
Or you could catch as many as you can. That way you contribute to the destruction of the resource.
However, you now make thousands.
If everyone agreed to only catch 10 fish they would all be better off in the long run. When you are struggling to survive, the 'long run' doesn't matter so much. What matters is survival.
Now what if one day one, you caught ten fish, and noticed that everyopne else caught 100. What do you do on day two?
Catching more fish, or having more children increases your chance of survival.
Hiostorically, as income increases, reproduction rates decrease.
Look at the various groups in America, The reproduction rate in poor areas is higher than that of wealthy areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Your pitiful attempts at humanization have only begun in the last 40 years or so - whereas other parts of the world have gotten over it and started getting along 100's of years ago - in the case of Australia, helping ones mates was the only way to survive *yourself* for hundreds of years.
Hundreds of years? Talking about the Australian Aboriginies I take it... Seeing Asutralia had its 100th birthday (since Federation) just this year...
That's quite humourous...
Given that the first 'correct code' example is wrong I wouldn't put to much trust in the rest...
It is 'int main' in C++ not 'main', god damn it.
I've been using the snapshots og gcc 3.0 for a while now, precisely because it is more standards compliant.
From the C perspective, what's wrong with non C99 compliant code. People still use K&R C, because it
is more portable.
That's because American studios/producers/whatever are either much smarter than our ones, or much bigger and thus their standover tactics work...
You want the rights to show , yes we can sell you that, it comes in this package which includes 500 of the worst shows we have ever made.
So the lucky Australian TV station gets the good show it wants and 500 crappy shows as well. Now its not going to spend more money when it has got all these hours of TV it can run against the other crap the other stations got bundled with their good imports...
Oh, and we've got fighter planes ready to destroy any vessel carrying Paul Hogan or Olivia Neutron-Bomb back from LA :)
A better idea might be to force them to land in NZ. That'll teach them to disband thier airforce...
If you read the article you might have noticed that he didn't say that at all. In fact he supported copyright in a form that is arguably more in line with the USA's constitution.
But, what about this FSF response. Why does it have a copyright? Shouldn't it be copyleft?
It looks like RMS is going over to the other side. I'm sure that Microsoft has something to do with this.
The response is copyright because modifying it served no purpose. Modifying it would allow people like you to try and distort the position the FSF is taking on the issue. Instead it says:
If you learnt to read and then actually read the transcript you might find the following in it: So RMS actually practices what he preaches. In my book that is a good (and even rare) thing. You don't have to agree with what he preaches, but you should at least try and get your facts straight.Actually I noticed my karma had somehow through no fault of my own got to double digits...
Thought I'd get modded down a bit to compensate. Since this is slashdot voice an opinion that is pro copyright (unless it's 'open source' of course) and get modded down...
My karma is still above 9, someone mod this down please...
(I actually have mod points right now, but since you can't post and mod to the same story, I guess I can't mod myself down...)
integral i32; integral i128;
or integral_at_least which would give you a 64-bit integer or whatever is fastest and at least that size for any given architecture.
Download boost and have all that and more...
Perfectly legal, right?
Yes. This might be an interesting way to get others to supply your bandwidth (for the downloading of CD images) for you.
Plus you'll probably get mirored on all the warez sites as well...
Sounds like a smart move to me.
Since the law is Australian and it's hard to find a new TV that doesn't support at least PAL50 and PAL60 (the cheap way of converting NTSC to PAL is to convert it to PAL format but at 60fps) in Australia I don't think that applies here. My cheap, five year old TV supports PAL50, PAL60 and NTSC just fine.
My cheap VCR plays NTSC and PAL just fine.
My (relatively) cheap DVD players plays NTSC and PAL just fine.
My TV capture card captures PAL and NTSC just fine.
I don't need some big brother company protecting me from scrambled pictures, that don't exist anyway.
Because you don't want people modifying or deleting the contents of the file. They do need to add things to it though. Log files are the obvious example. Though the property can be useful for other things as well. Leaving an audit trail of messages or whatever...
cat photo.png page.html
and render the image and/or HTML on the page would be a wonderful addition to the command-line toolset. However, the ability to work in text-only mode is a critical part of the appeal of Unix.
That's the way I would like to see it. Basically the opposite of the articles idea. Instead of having CLI programs also support a graphical interface, make graphical programs support interations with CLI programs....
It can't be too difficult, plan9 did it a long time ago after all... Then again I'm a lowly perl/C++ program and not a kernel hacker/graphics hacker/windowing system hacker/whatever so what do I know...
I want to be able to say:
wc -w /somepath/window/1
And have get the number of words currently in the window with ID 1 (which might be a text editor with my thesis open or something - of course there are issues as to does it just the text currently visible or the whole files text)...
cat somefile > /somepath/window/new
Should open a window with the text of somefile in it...
rm /somepath/window/1
Could close the window with ID of 1.
cp /somepath/window/1 foo
Could save a copy of the web page I'm viewing in the web browser with window ID of 1...
Take the 'everything if a file' concept a bit further and turn the windowing system into a file system (as an alternative way of interacting with it)...
echo "20dd" > /somepath/window/1/cmd
Could send 20dd to the aplication running in window 1, and vi would delete some stuff...
But I'm not going to code it so I'll shut up about it now...
Modern shells and systems cope with reasonably large shell command lines.
I use nmh so all each mail is in a seperate file, the biggest folder I have has 18958 messages in it at the moment (it's a mailing list that I've been subscribed to for a few years).
grep whatever * works fine in the folder's directory...
Your comment about speed is very true though.
grep whatever * takes over 6 times as long as grep whatever foo (where cat * | cmp - foo).
That's 1:50 as opposed to 17 seconds.
However, I glimpseindex my Mail folder early every morning (which I must admit chews about 50Mb of disk space just for the .glimpse* files - then again the mail takes up about 550Mb). Which means most of the searches I end up doing are reasonably fast (obviously searching for 'a' or something will take a _long_ time)
>My second comment is more a query. Are there
/*FOO_LEN-1 better*/
>header files available which make sure that
>strcpy and friends can't be used? It would go a
>way to helping if you could use these headers and
>WARNING:STRCPY USED. COMPILE ABORTED would pop up
>as appropriate. It wouldn't be a final fix but it
>would help and might get programmers out of the
>habit of using these awful functions in the first
>place.
strcpy is not an 'awful function'. strcpy is the wrong function to use if you do not know the length of the source string. If you know the length and it small enough to not overflow the array then strcpy if the right function.
That is a common case. Maybe you are setting a string to one of a bunch of values you have in an array via an index, you know the lengths, you know
the destination is big enough for the biggest one, thus strcpy is the right tool...
#define FOO_LEN 10000
char foo[FOO_LEN];
strncpy(foo,"hello",FOO_LEN);
foo[FOO_LEN-1] = '\0';
The above is not good code. Have you read the spec on what strncpy does? That will copy the characters 'h', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o' followed by 9995 '\0' characters into foo.
Wasting time copying 9995 '\0's that will never be seen by the rest of the code is not in my opinion a good thing to do...
strncpy is the best function to use in the general case, strcpy is often a better solution for a large number of specific cases (those where the lengths are known)...
>Apparently, lots of animals have no qualms about
>eating their offspring: crocodiles being one,
>famous, example
Crocodiles carry their young in their mouths from the hatchery to the water. That is not the same as eating them.
There are these cool frogs whose tadpoles live in puddles. Some of them grow bigger and begin to eat the other tadpoles.
It's a great way of maximising the resource usage, since the puddle will dry up soon enough. More mouths mean they eat more of the resources in a given time, and by some tadpoles eating other tadpoles, they get those resources. That way they can grow fast enough to make it out of the pond before it dries up.
When you hire a man for a job, you don't have to worry about him deciding he doesn't want to hold a job for the rest of his life 6 months after you hire him.
How many male programmers stay in the same job for more than six months these day anyway?
But student pages tend to be under .edu.
They also tend to change often and contain material the censors would like to censor... like political views, rants about the evils of censorship, and of course the occasional pirated mp3 and even a picture of a naked person....
Last I checked linux didn't even support CD-ROM
drives.
Tim: Well, how about a basketball player invents a new move. Should that be patentable?
Dickinson: Moves aren't patentable subject matter.
Tim: Why is that?
Dickinson: They may be copyrightable subject matter, as dance is, but they're not
patentable subject matter.
Since I know nothing about US copyright and patent law (not living in the US after all)...
Are the sets of things that can be patented and things that can be copyrighted mutually exclusive?
Or can you patent the 'process' and copyright a specific 'implementation' of it?
I'm guessing the second, since it's all a conspiracy after all
If it's the first, does that mean it is legal to
somehow get your hands on the code for GIF compression or for Final Fantasy, and then use that code in your own project in a different domain so that the patent is not infringed? Since the code must be public domain since it can't
be copyright as it is patented...
>Jon said mentioned "attitude", I beg to disagree.
;)
>Attitude may be important, but it is not
>everything.
You obviously need to spend more time watching the
WWF. Attitude is all that matters...
Get back to writting my damn MoD player...
Maybe you should use a font in which 1 and l look different.
Lucky that, since that would be pretty hard to do ;)
You mean like:j ']]);
@x=('a','b',{'c'=>'d','e'=>['f','g']},['h',['i','
Looks almost the same to me... Coule get it even closer with:j ']]];
$x=['a','b',{'c'=>'d','e'=>['f','g']},['h',['i','
So we write it the same way in perl and python.
As for the rest of your post you really should take a look at 'Object Oriented Perl' by Damian Conway. I think you'll find perl does everything you could want from an OO design point of view simply and painlessly.
Have you ever tried to read befunge, or brainf***? I know these languages, and this is certainly NOT true for them. Perl also makes heavy use of punctuation marks to mean things which are not only not immediately obvious, they can be confusing. In fact, a quote from Larry Wall himself is "admittedly, readability suffers..."
OK what use of punctuation in perl isn't obvious?
Quoting out of context doesn't achieve much.
>ldd `which ln` /lib...> /lib without these
/usr/local/lib. But I could of course
>ldd `which mkdir`
<snip linraries in
>Anyway, how am I to recreate
>tools?
Because you have a statically linked binary that
performs all these operations via symlinks, in
/sbin.
If you don't, why not? Be prepared for doing
stupid things at 4am when you really were
too tired to be installing a new kernel.
I suspect that the original poster
meant
be wrong as usual.
>>I'm amazed human rights organisations have not
>>stood up for the right of the defendant to be
>>tried by proper licensed professionals.
>So why not do away with juries altogether? The
>lawyers and judges are all certified, surely that
>makes them elite enough to decide the fate of
>the accused.
Heck, why not just let the police do it. Just add
a certification test to their training...
That would save some of the money spent on the
justice department. Just let the police drop their
supects off at the local maximum security prison.
No judges, no lawyers. Just good old fashioned
martial law.
> I dunno, color me silly... but it would seem
> to me that if the chance of my child dying
> were greated, I'd be LESS inclined to want
> to suffer through that.
Not if your life depended on having a few
children survive. If the odds are against you,
spread your chances around. Maybe just one
of the ten children will survive.
> As far as If you don't want over population, end
> poverty! statement goes. Bullshit.
Why don't you do some research instead of just
assuming that your views muct be right.
Look at the history of any first world country you
like. See how as the level of poverty was reduced
the level of population growth declined.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone in India.
There is no welfare available for you. You have
no pension. You have no savings. You spend
everything you earn on necessities, or maybe
you are a subsistance farmer.
One day you will be unable to work, when that
happens you will have no income, and no food. You
will starve to death.
The only way to make sure this doesn't happen is
to have a child who will support you when you
are unable to support yourself.
However, the infant mortality rate is high,
and disease is common. If your children all die
you will starve to death. The solution is to
have lots of children, one of them may survive.
Most species have this response to high death
rates. It makes sense.
You in your wisdom no that having less children
will actually be better. There will be less
mouths to feed, there will be less resource
use, etc, etc.
However, on an individual level it is not true.
As an individual I am better off having as many
children as possible. Blame evolution for this
desire to live and pass on my genes.
It's the same problem as a common field, or
gold mine, or fishing lake.
Say there is a lake that can support the
fishing of 1000 fish per [time period]. Say you
can make $10 per fish. Say you can catch 100 fish
perl [time period]. Say there are 100 other people
just like you around this same lake.
What do you do?
Do you catch 10 fish. That way you are taking
your 'quota'. However, everyone else isn't so
nice, they catch 100 fish. The fish population
is destroyed.
You made $100. The other people made $1000.
The fish population is destroyed. There shall
be no more fish.
Or you could catch as many as you can. That way
you contribute to the destruction of the
resource.
However, you now make thousands.
If everyone agreed to only catch 10 fish they
would all be better off in the long run. When you
are struggling to survive, the 'long run' doesn't
matter so much. What matters is survival.
Now what if one day one, you caught ten fish,
and noticed that everyopne else caught 100.
What do you do on day two?
Catching more fish, or having more children
increases your chance of survival.
Hiostorically, as income increases, reproduction
rates decrease.
Look at the various groups in America, The
reproduction rate in poor areas is higher than
that of wealthy areas.