I believe the reason that slashdot has become more politically polarized is that so has the rest of the polity. To be more precise, the rhetoric has become more polarized while the policies have become more similar, at least to the degree in which they represent the interests of the ruling class. Divide et impera. Also, legislation targeting computer technology has expanded as the influence of that technology has expanded. It took a relatively long time to go from the beginnings of the web to Wikileaks and the Arab Spring. I predict we are only at the beginning of the political changes effected by the Internet -- or perhaps I mean the beginning of the politicization of the Internet.
About that little neologism... it's very convenient, don't you think? Not that it necessarily had to be coined recently, but the term was not in frequent use until the last year, as evidenced by Google Trends. The term carries the connotation that how things are being practiced is incorrect, not that there are any sort of flaws inherent in the system. It's not like massive amounts of capital lead to a greater concentration of capital, it just happens when the government sticks its big ugly nose into things. Because capitalism is (somehow) about concentrating wealth only until a certain point. After that it's not capitalism, it's uhhhh...
Fascism. But no capitalist wants to say it. In point of fact, the system is working as designed.
I've given it up for years at a time. Presently, in point of fact. A lot of potheads are hippie dippie types who will periodically 'cleanse' (variously defined).
What about you? Coffee, booze, cigarettes, sex? Addicted to clean living? It's one of the fundamental instincts of mankind to want to experience different mental states. Weed does that with one of the lowest incidences of side effects, and it's cheap to produce.
There is a correlation in the behavior you see, but the causation runs oppositely. Taking a hit off a joint isn't going to turn anyone into a liberal peacenik hippie, ah...oops. Sorry about that, Bill. Anyway, point being, you're still the same person after you put that joint down.
Yes, you are trolling. You offer no refutation of the ideas, only niggling (and factually dubious) points of pedantry. It wouldn't make a difference to the philosophical statement were it to have emerged from the mouth of an ass, and been prefaced with doggerel.
Jefferson acknowledged that patents existed despite his ideals. It is reasonable to do so in a non-ideal world such as we find ourselves in. I myself draw the same point of distinction. Those ideals are as controversial then as they are now, perhaps more so. If I were today to write a apology for Marxism, and wished to maintain my reputation as a reasoned individual, I might include a disclaimer to that effect myself.
You will of course have noted that the main course of my arguments against patents have been against the specific evil of software patents, to which you have made no reply. I have used the words of Jefferson to establish a philosophic and moral basis for these arguments, to which I suspect that you cannot reply.
Jefferson was not an idealist, which is a term I would use to describe someone divorced from reality. I find myself having most cause to apply this term to those who advocate extremes of capitalism, the world largely having done away with those who profess extreme socialist beliefs. You may beg to differ. However, it does not follow that a man may not both be practical and yet hold strong ideals about the way the world should be, even if such thoughts are not followed by decisive action. To this degree you are displaying a commonality of thought between myself and Jefferson.
Now, it is incumbent upon you, if you disagree with the main of my argument, to strike on its head, and not to hector and quibble about who said what and make obvious statements about the legality of things which are not largely in dispute. I am not averse to being convinced of the merits of a thing that I have not thus far been able to appreciate, and if I had greater cause, I might, like Jefferson, choose a different battle. I have not to date heard a cogent or lucid argument for the existence of software patents. I remain doubtful, but hopeful, that you may provide such.
In re Bilski seems to have put constraints on that. Also, I could give a fuck whether it is legal. Software patents are legally defensible, in the US. That doesn't make them right. Honestly, you read a diatribe on Jefferson and how IP should not exist on philosophic grounds, and countered that with a fine point of legality? My email is public. If you have a better apology for software and/or method patents I would like to hear it. Please be aware of the European Patent Convention in relation to software patents.
I believe you. However, here you are preaching to the choir. You may want to champion your beliefs at, say, IP Watchdog.
I learned there that you should apply for software patents before any code has been written, and that thinking of the idea is the hard part. Coders just do what they're told -- that stuff is simple. It takes a really smart ass^H^H^H guy to come up with ideas like this patent.
Web development, app development, graphics editing, audio editing. You have a circular argument -- or a No True Scotsman if you prefer that term.
The list of computing tasks for which a powerful desktop machine is necessary is vastly smaller than the list of computing tasks, as evidenced by hardware sales. This trend is increasing. At some point large computers will be both expensive and rare, and I for one won't mind that if it means the end of fixing desktops. Users can send their tablets back to the manufacturer.
No one who really uses a computer needs anything more than a low-level programming language and decade-old hardware. Any problem that can be solved by throwing more hardware at it is trivial -- and incidentally, if there's a job function involved in that, the hardware will eventually obviate it.
Please use fewer ellipses. I hate to suggest that perhaps you edit your comments, but given that your remarks here will be durable beyond anyone's ken, you may want to refrain from overstating the obvious or trivial.
Beyond the standard of obviousness, there are differences between software patents and most other forms of patent which you seem to be completely unaware of. This AC has a good summary. To this list we may add that patents are meant to cover implementations, not methods. You're supposed to be able to patent the cotton gin, but not "a process for separating cotton from seeds." Software patents exclusively fall into the latter domain; the rights to the implementation fall under copyright law. It is relevant to note that patent submissions used to require a working model of the device in question. This seems to be a useful standard of patentability; it could be beneficial to revive it. Looking beyond the basis for the patents, we have the issue of how these patents are actually being used, which is almost certainly to no one's benefit except the lawyers. I would be gratified for a counterexample.
Any one of the above reasons should be enough to decide the issue of software patents; sensibly they are not allowed in Europe. I think it entirely prudent to examine the fundamental basis of other areas of patent law, such as with chemical and genetic patents, and to judge them by the same standards.
My ultimate view is shared with that of Jefferson, and as I cannot hope to improve on his statement I shall merely quote:
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Source document. The entirety is well worth reading, and shouldn't strain anyone's attention span.
The argument of patents is not one of ownership. There is no such thing as 'intellectual property' save by grant of society. Given that we need not invest much in order to spread ideas around the globe, what benefit do we see in restricting that natural flow? That a few may profit?
I hope I'm the only slashdotter who's actually lived there. It was thoroughly a shithole.
I was driving around with a friend, and we stopped to visit some good ol' boy. Said GOB had underwear and a tshirt but no pants. The reason for his error in overdressing became clear as he lifted his shirt to reveal the nastiest scar that I hope to see. It looked like a drunk had stitched him together with twine. GOB had traded a kidney for crack. "You know the urban legend about people waking up in a bathtub full of ice? That happened to me, man. But I'm doing better now -- off that stuff. The thing that gets me is, who would want a crackhead's kidney?"
The day I left town there was a story from the local press, about a couple of crackheads stealing their neighbor's pet pygmy goat, slaughtering it, and trading the meat to their dealer for crack.
I shouted when I saw Rock Hill in the summary. If I had been drinking coffee/. would owe me a new screen. There's nothing positive that can be said about the place. It was, however, a very typical one-horse town, with Charlotte being about 20 minutes away.
We admire many talented liars -- what, after all, is a politician? We admire van Gogh, and Kafka, although they were by most definitions crazy. Further, is it inconsistent somehow to admire liars or lunatics? Is it somehow immoral or irrational to find positive elements about some other human?
If Christianity has not better apologists than C.S. Lewis it deserves to be forgotten.
Give a short, complete, accurate answer to this question: what is a particle?
If you must be ignorant, keep an open mind. Outside of the scale that human senses are designed to appreciate, extrapolation from experience tends not to be very useful.
Oracle would like to enforce a copyright claim on a programming language. Sun v. Microsoft was a trademark dispute.
Oracle is not claiming that Google has used the Java trademarks. This phase of the trial will only examine whether Google has violated Oracle's copyrights, and there will be no examination of trademarks in any phase.
Neither party seems to want to directly examine the question of whether programming languages or APIs can be copyrighted, which I find confusing. Oracle's stance on this issue is obvious, but Google's arguments are a little more interesting:
Google expects the following 3 findings to be reached:
1) there was no copyright infringement; the language is free and the APIs are necessary to use it.
2) Sun approved its use.
3) Android is a fair use of the Java APIs.
I take from this that Google is arguing that programming languages may be copyrighted, but that Java was released under an open source license which Google is complying with. Point #2 seems very difficult to dispute; even Mr. One Rich Asshole has been very complimentary of Google's efforts with Java/Android.
With regard to the linux kernel, which has zero to do with this lawsuit, Google has operated with respect to the law and the GPL; they have released the source for every binary they've distributed, and they are actively trying to merge their code with the upstream project. RMS is an idealist, and many F/OSS advocates support him in principle; you could call him the conscience of computing. However, it is recognized by all but the fanatically religious that pure ideologies function only in an ideal world, which we are not fortunate enough to live in.
Today, we recognize that Oracle is a threat to free computing. Tomorrow we may take up the issue of free data with Google -- I sincerely doubt that meaningful digital privacy is possible, in practice if not in theory.
When have you ever heard a linux proponent say they want it to become popular? I think the most I'd ever hope for would be that those who want to use it find it useful. That sort of goes against the whole 'computing appliance' idea; that trend is actively harmful to general purpose computing. Also, 'freedom to choose; includes the choice to use a buggy, virus-laden OS, and good riddance to that entire category of user, in my opinion. Increased corporate sponsorship is one thing, but the only thing that Joe Average does is complain about how things should work.
Linux users: post if you actually want linux to see widespread adoption in the home market. Also note whether you think that this could happen without linux becoming a walled garden.
I'm rather surprised their predictions are not for an earlier date. I have been keeping in the back of my mind the idea of joining a permaculture farm in some tropical locale (I'm in Costa Rica, so it wouldn't be too much of a change), hopefully one with solar power, but I would hate to say goodbye in any permanent sense to the global internet and the benefits of a developed manufacturing society. So, if the world does come to an end, what electronics would be possible to construct? Hand wire-wrapped 8-bit processors? What could be done for a screen? Is it possible to manufacture DIY LEDs? What data storage might be possible? Archival "100 year" CDs exist, but what about an archival 100-year CD reader? Is an "Encyclopedia Galactica" possible?
Lastly, is it overly cynical to believe that these goals are more possible than the change necessary to avert this catastrophe?
P.S. It strikes me that there are few things humanity is worse at than predicting the future. However, in a world where the economy can barely survive normal human activities, but which is subject to a multitude of natural disasters, I imagine that the only question concerning a collapse of human society is when we may expect it.
Absolutely. You have a life-threatening condition, I have you in my hospital, therefore I can charge you whatever your life is worth for your care. Don't like it? Die in the streets. I'll forward any bill you've already incurred to your next of kin.
This the reason why health care is different from other markets: you are buying and selling life itself. The only thing that keeps prices in check is the necessity to shear your sheep rather than skin them.
Now, in a world where governments have no duty to preserve the rights to life or happiness of their citizenry, this is acceptable. If, however, we live in some other world, then we are faced with two options: socialism, or bad socialism. Now, you have not proposed a solution worth critiquing, preferring anecdote to logic, but it is worth noting that both medical care and food supplies are both massively subsidized by the US government.
I'm more concerned that someone under the presumption of innocence is instead being tried in the court of public opinion, which obeys no law and follows no procedure. Regardless of the facts of the matter, I would almost rather have my day in court and be acquitted than have my life torn to pieces in a three-ring media circus.
You may see it as a wedge issue. I see it as the most fundamental issue humanity faces. You see benefits in individual liberty, I see disaster if we cannot collectively manage the limited resources available to us. Even if the world were larger, or more bountiful, our exponential expansion of a species must at a time overrun our bounds. For this reason I see some form of socialist government as inevitable. There is no wealth gained in isolation; a world of riches profits not one who has no society with which to trade. Even more to the point, our species does not perpetuate itself in isolation.
I believe that environmental issues are the most serious of those that confront us today. We have been enormously successful as a species, but economies, lifestyles, and worldviews predicated on exponential expansion are doomed to failure. If we had an infinite world, it might make sense for individuals to own as large of pieces of it as they liked. In practice, the degree to which individuals "own" their land is necessarily quite limited: governments may install infrastructure as necessary, and penalize the owners for ill conduct of the land, or even appropriate it wholly under the judicial principle of "eminent domain". Any philosophy that dispenses with these rights endangers the functioning of society.
I do not hold that the individual has no rights, or that he does not have rights which should not be abridged by collective society. There is a balance of rights which should be maintained, in order to promote both the welfare of the individual and the group. To enshrine personal property along with life and liberty as inalienable is fractally harmful: a danger on all scales. The absolute onus is not laid on the individual to preserve himself, but on humanity to preserve itself. This is the foundation of all law and morality.
to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.
No. I refuse to recognize the right to private property over the right of public use. Ultimately we have one world, and we must share it, or contribute to our own extinction.
Your gaydar must be broken. You must not have much of an interest in identifying gay males. For those of us that do, there are a lot of mostly subtle behavioral cues that can be picked out. How one walks, talks, grooms themselves, or holds their teacup can be a big indicator, but the most reliable one is the eyes. Who you look at out of a crowd of people is usually pretty telling, and of course duration of initial eye contact.
Acting straight would be the absence of characteristically gay behavioral cues.
My statistics are based on gay hookup sites, of which there are a fair few. I don't really feel like holding forth on the differences between gay and straight social interaction, it's worth noting that men have stronger sex drives than women and are, shall we say, more straightforward about obtaining sex. I don't want to say that for most of us the world revolves around sex, but let's just say it tends to be a big issue. Probably my sampling bias leans towards the more overtly gay types. Probably Kinsey had better data, but I think he agrees with me closely enough.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the reason that slashdot has become more politically polarized is that so has the rest of the polity. To be more precise, the rhetoric has become more polarized while the policies have become more similar, at least to the degree in which they represent the interests of the ruling class. Divide et impera. Also, legislation targeting computer technology has expanded as the influence of that technology has expanded. It took a relatively long time to go from the beginnings of the web to Wikileaks and the Arab Spring. I predict we are only at the beginning of the political changes effected by the Internet -- or perhaps I mean the beginning of the politicization of the Internet.
About that little neologism... it's very convenient, don't you think? Not that it necessarily had to be coined recently, but the term was not in frequent use until the last year, as evidenced by Google Trends. The term carries the connotation that how things are being practiced is incorrect, not that there are any sort of flaws inherent in the system. It's not like massive amounts of capital lead to a greater concentration of capital, it just happens when the government sticks its big ugly nose into things. Because capitalism is (somehow) about concentrating wealth only until a certain point. After that it's not capitalism, it's uhhhh...
Fascism. But no capitalist wants to say it. In point of fact, the system is working as designed.
I've given it up for years at a time. Presently, in point of fact. A lot of potheads are hippie dippie types who will periodically 'cleanse' (variously defined).
What about you? Coffee, booze, cigarettes, sex? Addicted to clean living? It's one of the fundamental instincts of mankind to want to experience different mental states. Weed does that with one of the lowest incidences of side effects, and it's cheap to produce.
There is a correlation in the behavior you see, but the causation runs oppositely. Taking a hit off a joint isn't going to turn anyone into a liberal peacenik hippie, ah...oops. Sorry about that, Bill. Anyway, point being, you're still the same person after you put that joint down.
Exactly. That's why I have a stockpile of Intertubes at my house. Then when the tubes run out, I'll make a fortune!
You have mistaken the product for the infrastructure. The product is bits per second. Just so we're clear on that.
Yes, you are trolling. You offer no refutation of the ideas, only niggling (and factually dubious) points of pedantry. It wouldn't make a difference to the philosophical statement were it to have emerged from the mouth of an ass, and been prefaced with doggerel.
Jefferson acknowledged that patents existed despite his ideals. It is reasonable to do so in a non-ideal world such as we find ourselves in. I myself draw the same point of distinction. Those ideals are as controversial then as they are now, perhaps more so. If I were today to write a apology for Marxism, and wished to maintain my reputation as a reasoned individual, I might include a disclaimer to that effect myself.
You will of course have noted that the main course of my arguments against patents have been against the specific evil of software patents, to which you have made no reply. I have used the words of Jefferson to establish a philosophic and moral basis for these arguments, to which I suspect that you cannot reply.
Jefferson was not an idealist, which is a term I would use to describe someone divorced from reality. I find myself having most cause to apply this term to those who advocate extremes of capitalism, the world largely having done away with those who profess extreme socialist beliefs. You may beg to differ. However, it does not follow that a man may not both be practical and yet hold strong ideals about the way the world should be, even if such thoughts are not followed by decisive action. To this degree you are displaying a commonality of thought between myself and Jefferson.
Now, it is incumbent upon you, if you disagree with the main of my argument, to strike on its head, and not to hector and quibble about who said what and make obvious statements about the legality of things which are not largely in dispute. I am not averse to being convinced of the merits of a thing that I have not thus far been able to appreciate, and if I had greater cause, I might, like Jefferson, choose a different battle. I have not to date heard a cogent or lucid argument for the existence of software patents. I remain doubtful, but hopeful, that you may provide such.
If you actually read the quoted letter you would see that he mentions that. Troll harder.
In re Bilski seems to have put constraints on that. Also, I could give a fuck whether it is legal. Software patents are legally defensible, in the US. That doesn't make them right. Honestly, you read a diatribe on Jefferson and how IP should not exist on philosophic grounds, and countered that with a fine point of legality? My email is public. If you have a better apology for software and/or method patents I would like to hear it. Please be aware of the European Patent Convention in relation to software patents.
I believe you. However, here you are preaching to the choir. You may want to champion your beliefs at, say, IP Watchdog.
I learned there that you should apply for software patents before any code has been written, and that thinking of the idea is the hard part. Coders just do what they're told -- that stuff is simple. It takes a really smart ass^H^H^H guy to come up with ideas like this patent.
Web development, app development, graphics editing, audio editing. You have a circular argument -- or a No True Scotsman if you prefer that term.
The list of computing tasks for which a powerful desktop machine is necessary is vastly smaller than the list of computing tasks, as evidenced by hardware sales. This trend is increasing. At some point large computers will be both expensive and rare, and I for one won't mind that if it means the end of fixing desktops. Users can send their tablets back to the manufacturer.
No one who really uses a computer needs anything more than a low-level programming language and decade-old hardware. Any problem that can be solved by throwing more hardware at it is trivial -- and incidentally, if there's a job function involved in that, the hardware will eventually obviate it.
Please use fewer ellipses. I hate to suggest that perhaps you edit your comments, but given that your remarks here will be durable beyond anyone's ken, you may want to refrain from overstating the obvious or trivial.
Beyond the standard of obviousness, there are differences between software patents and most other forms of patent which you seem to be completely unaware of. This AC has a good summary. To this list we may add that patents are meant to cover implementations, not methods. You're supposed to be able to patent the cotton gin, but not "a process for separating cotton from seeds." Software patents exclusively fall into the latter domain; the rights to the implementation fall under copyright law. It is relevant to note that patent submissions used to require a working model of the device in question. This seems to be a useful standard of patentability; it could be beneficial to revive it. Looking beyond the basis for the patents, we have the issue of how these patents are actually being used, which is almost certainly to no one's benefit except the lawyers. I would be gratified for a counterexample.
Any one of the above reasons should be enough to decide the issue of software patents; sensibly they are not allowed in Europe. I think it entirely prudent to examine the fundamental basis of other areas of patent law, such as with chemical and genetic patents, and to judge them by the same standards.
My ultimate view is shared with that of Jefferson, and as I cannot hope to improve on his statement I shall merely quote:
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Source document. The entirety is well worth reading, and shouldn't strain anyone's attention span.
The argument of patents is not one of ownership. There is no such thing as 'intellectual property' save by grant of society. Given that we need not invest much in order to spread ideas around the globe, what benefit do we see in restricting that natural flow? That a few may profit?
I hope I'm the only slashdotter who's actually lived there. It was thoroughly a shithole.
I was driving around with a friend, and we stopped to visit some good ol' boy. Said GOB had underwear and a tshirt but no pants. The reason for his error in overdressing became clear as he lifted his shirt to reveal the nastiest scar that I hope to see. It looked like a drunk had stitched him together with twine. GOB had traded a kidney for crack. "You know the urban legend about people waking up in a bathtub full of ice? That happened to me, man. But I'm doing better now -- off that stuff. The thing that gets me is, who would want a crackhead's kidney?"
The day I left town there was a story from the local press, about a couple of crackheads stealing their neighbor's pet pygmy goat, slaughtering it, and trading the meat to their dealer for crack.
I shouted when I saw Rock Hill in the summary. If I had been drinking coffee /. would owe me a new screen. There's nothing positive that can be said about the place. It was, however, a very typical one-horse town, with Charlotte being about 20 minutes away.
Kubrick said explicitly that HAL wasn't named after IBM, but there are a suspicious few references to IBM in the movie: http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%208.html
C.S. Lewis was a talented sophist.
We admire many talented liars -- what, after all, is a politician? We admire van Gogh, and Kafka, although they were by most definitions crazy. Further, is it inconsistent somehow to admire liars or lunatics? Is it somehow immoral or irrational to find positive elements about some other human?
If Christianity has not better apologists than C.S. Lewis it deserves to be forgotten.
Give a short, complete, accurate answer to this question: what is a particle?
If you must be ignorant, keep an open mind. Outside of the scale that human senses are designed to appreciate, extrapolation from experience tends not to be very useful.
Oracle would like to enforce a copyright claim on a programming language. Sun v. Microsoft was a trademark dispute.
Oracle is not claiming that Google has used the Java trademarks. This phase of the trial will only examine whether Google has violated Oracle's copyrights, and there will be no examination of trademarks in any phase.
Neither party seems to want to directly examine the question of whether programming languages or APIs can be copyrighted, which I find confusing. Oracle's stance on this issue is obvious, but Google's arguments are a little more interesting:
Google expects the following 3 findings to be reached:
1) there was no copyright infringement; the language is free and the APIs are necessary to use it.
2) Sun approved its use.
3) Android is a fair use of the Java APIs.
I take from this that Google is arguing that programming languages may be copyrighted, but that Java was released under an open source license which Google is complying with. Point #2 seems very difficult to dispute; even Mr. One Rich Asshole has been very complimentary of Google's efforts with Java/Android.
With regard to the linux kernel, which has zero to do with this lawsuit, Google has operated with respect to the law and the GPL; they have released the source for every binary they've distributed, and they are actively trying to merge their code with the upstream project. RMS is an idealist, and many F/OSS advocates support him in principle; you could call him the conscience of computing. However, it is recognized by all but the fanatically religious that pure ideologies function only in an ideal world, which we are not fortunate enough to live in.
Today, we recognize that Oracle is a threat to free computing. Tomorrow we may take up the issue of free data with Google -- I sincerely doubt that meaningful digital privacy is possible, in practice if not in theory.
When have you ever heard a linux proponent say they want it to become popular? I think the most I'd ever hope for would be that those who want to use it find it useful. That sort of goes against the whole 'computing appliance' idea; that trend is actively harmful to general purpose computing. Also, 'freedom to choose; includes the choice to use a buggy, virus-laden OS, and good riddance to that entire category of user, in my opinion. Increased corporate sponsorship is one thing, but the only thing that Joe Average does is complain about how things should work.
Linux users: post if you actually want linux to see widespread adoption in the home market. Also note whether you think that this could happen without linux becoming a walled garden.
I've never understood that particular idiocy. Texans know they don't live in the biggest US state, right? Texas is less than half the size of Alaska.
Ethanol-fueled may not be the world's best person, but at least he's no APK.
I don't support banning, generally, but in the interest of full disclosure, you should describe your version of events.
On a purely personal/emotional level I would like to see E-f around here again. He's no more objectionable than any of the rest of us.
How to Survive the Coming Apocalypse?
I'm rather surprised their predictions are not for an earlier date. I have been keeping in the back of my mind the idea of joining a permaculture farm in some tropical locale (I'm in Costa Rica, so it wouldn't be too much of a change), hopefully one with solar power, but I would hate to say goodbye in any permanent sense to the global internet and the benefits of a developed manufacturing society. So, if the world does come to an end, what electronics would be possible to construct? Hand wire-wrapped 8-bit processors? What could be done for a screen? Is it possible to manufacture DIY LEDs? What data storage might be possible? Archival "100 year" CDs exist, but what about an archival 100-year CD reader? Is an "Encyclopedia Galactica" possible?
Lastly, is it overly cynical to believe that these goals are more possible than the change necessary to avert this catastrophe?
P.S. It strikes me that there are few things humanity is worse at than predicting the future. However, in a world where the economy can barely survive normal human activities, but which is subject to a multitude of natural disasters, I imagine that the only question concerning a collapse of human society is when we may expect it.
Absolutely. You have a life-threatening condition, I have you in my hospital, therefore I can charge you whatever your life is worth for your care. Don't like it? Die in the streets. I'll forward any bill you've already incurred to your next of kin.
This the reason why health care is different from other markets: you are buying and selling life itself. The only thing that keeps prices in check is the necessity to shear your sheep rather than skin them.
Now, in a world where governments have no duty to preserve the rights to life or happiness of their citizenry, this is acceptable. If, however, we live in some other world, then we are faced with two options: socialism, or bad socialism. Now, you have not proposed a solution worth critiquing, preferring anecdote to logic, but it is worth noting that both medical care and food supplies are both massively subsidized by the US government.
I'm more concerned that someone under the presumption of innocence is instead being tried in the court of public opinion, which obeys no law and follows no procedure. Regardless of the facts of the matter, I would almost rather have my day in court and be acquitted than have my life torn to pieces in a three-ring media circus.
+1 Rounded Corners
You may see it as a wedge issue. I see it as the most fundamental issue humanity faces. You see benefits in individual liberty, I see disaster if we cannot collectively manage the limited resources available to us. Even if the world were larger, or more bountiful, our exponential expansion of a species must at a time overrun our bounds. For this reason I see some form of socialist government as inevitable. There is no wealth gained in isolation; a world of riches profits not one who has no society with which to trade. Even more to the point, our species does not perpetuate itself in isolation.
I believe that environmental issues are the most serious of those that confront us today. We have been enormously successful as a species, but economies, lifestyles, and worldviews predicated on exponential expansion are doomed to failure. If we had an infinite world, it might make sense for individuals to own as large of pieces of it as they liked. In practice, the degree to which individuals "own" their land is necessarily quite limited: governments may install infrastructure as necessary, and penalize the owners for ill conduct of the land, or even appropriate it wholly under the judicial principle of "eminent domain". Any philosophy that dispenses with these rights endangers the functioning of society.
I do not hold that the individual has no rights, or that he does not have rights which should not be abridged by collective society. There is a balance of rights which should be maintained, in order to promote both the welfare of the individual and the group. To enshrine personal property along with life and liberty as inalienable is fractally harmful: a danger on all scales. The absolute onus is not laid on the individual to preserve himself, but on humanity to preserve itself. This is the foundation of all law and morality.
to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.
No. I refuse to recognize the right to private property over the right of public use. Ultimately we have one world, and we must share it, or contribute to our own extinction.
Your gaydar must be broken. You must not have much of an interest in identifying gay males. For those of us that do, there are a lot of mostly subtle behavioral cues that can be picked out. How one walks, talks, grooms themselves, or holds their teacup can be a big indicator, but the most reliable one is the eyes. Who you look at out of a crowd of people is usually pretty telling, and of course duration of initial eye contact.
Acting straight would be the absence of characteristically gay behavioral cues.
My statistics are based on gay hookup sites, of which there are a fair few. I don't really feel like holding forth on the differences between gay and straight social interaction, it's worth noting that men have stronger sex drives than women and are, shall we say, more straightforward about obtaining sex. I don't want to say that for most of us the world revolves around sex, but let's just say it tends to be a big issue. Probably my sampling bias leans towards the more overtly gay types. Probably Kinsey had better data, but I think he agrees with me closely enough.