The nub of the issue is how to harden the internet against the vagaries of mob rule, special interests, fads and knees jerking. At the same time to embed freedom in such a way that the usual suspects can't dilute it, even if they try.
Whatever you might think of the USA, there is no other country in the world that could have delivered the internet in its current form, with its openness and freedoms.
However, that does not mean that the USA will remain a good custodian forever, so some insurance against future (current?) loss of liberty is appropriate.
I don't believe national governments or the UN are the answer, but am struggling to propose an alternative.
You mention lack of competition due to high barriers of entry. These are almost entirely created by the government. Big corporations love regulations, because it is a way for them to lock out new entrants. Another example: Vehicle manufacturers cannot sell directly to customers, they have to set up a dealer network. Disintermediation is not allowed.
Don't get me wrong - there is a place for a (rational) green movement, regulation of the commons and preventing harm. It's just that "unnecessarily horrific" is emotive and not objective. I am very familiar with Bhopal, which was tragic. However, there were many causes, mostly not to do with science. Third-world countries in the modern era are that way for a reason, which has nothing to do with science. Anyway, industrial disasters happen everywhere, not just to brown people.
But what is the alternative? No industry? No. Better regulations? Yes. But a government that allows a teeming slum to develop next to a facility like Bhopal is at least partly complicit. Despite this disaster, the nett impact of all such plants remains positive.
Anyway, we are in agreement. The problem is one of perception. It starts with the drumbeat of negative media, which then falls on the fertile ground of scientific ignorance. This has become a self-perpetuating cycle, which somehow must be broken.
You ask for an reason why an industry can not be safe and non-polluting from its beginning? Let me give a random example. In olden days, steel was made in a "bloomery". This was labor-intensive, dangerous, polluting and expensive. Steel was very expensive. The process evolved through several stages until Bessemer invented the blast furnace. Steel could be made cheaply in large quantities, relatively safely. However, the process is highly polluting. Because the steel was cheap, it became affordable to add pollution control. But this could not occur until the blast furnace was proven and established. At the same time, perceptions of the public had to change. If a law existed preventing steelmaking pollution, steel would never have developed in to an industry, and the world would have been very different.
You've almost got it. Sure, rivers were polluted, but now they are not - we have the technology to fix it. Safety standards have been developed. All the while life expectancies and quality of life improved. And if you think a mythical, idyllic subsistance agrarian utopia ever existed, think again - it was/is nasty, short and brutish, or "social cost" in your euphemistic words. Ask any third-world person which he would prefer.
If we said that rivers can never be polluted, then the industries would never have been built. The end result of such path would be a lower standard of living.
"...running industry as a terrifying dehumanized process..." This applies only to someone who does not understand it.
In short, you are an example of our society, which fears progress, fears the unknown (which is pretty much everything) and where "the perfect if the enemy of the good".
P.S. What is your point in referring to "poor brown people"?
I am a chemical engineer and very engaged in the sciences. Naturally I try to pass on this enthusiasm to my sons who are in middle school. The elder is struggling with math - he is disinterested. He says he is not going to pursue a career in the sciences, so he need not know any math. He does not feel the need to understand how things work. There is no value in this intellectual effort. My neighbor, a music teacher, is disturbed that I spray weed killer on my lawn. In her eyes, the fact that I am a chemical engineer is a disqualification for making an informed decision on the matter.
This is very discouraging to me. Such a mass of people electing representatives is going to lead to poor public policy. For example, literally millions have died in Africa due to the banning of DDT. Sure, DDT has a downside, but not worse than dying of malaria.
Somewhere along the line, we lost our appetite for imposing ourselves on Nature, taking risks and making the the world a better place. This involves accepting that mistakes will be made, but that overall, in the long run, things will be better through human ingenuity. Now, there is such a fear of the unknown (= scientific ignorance) and the unforseen that we are becoming a paralyzed culture. Where previously we would glory in "taming" a river and building a Hoover dam, all we see now is the desecration of the noble earth. We are so scared that we cannot cope with the consequences of global warming that we are willing to reverse progress deliberately! This is unprecedented in history, and does not require scientific understanding.
Its time to send the telephone sanitizers on a quest.
Everyone is arguing about the reality or not of global warming.
In my opinion the focus should be on the future consequences. What's the point in spending more money on preventing a harm than the cost of the harm itself? Especially if not 100% certain, and discounted to a present value?
I'm tired of the conservatives (with a little c) who cannot accept any change in the world.
The kids around here are being told not to put anything on Facebook or Myspace, because it will last "forever", and embarrass and cost them jobs when they are grown up.
The Egyptians complained about the English "stealing" their cotton spinning and weaving business. The English complained about the Yankee New Englanders, who complained about the Southerners, who complained about the Mexicans, who complained about the Malaysians who are complaining about the Chinese and Indians.
When I say "complained", I mean passed laws and regulations, imposed sanctions, taxes and duties, fought wars, battled smuggling, and whined.
In the long run, the laws of econonics ALWAYS win. The US should fix the causes, not the symptoms.
I am always annoyed when I hear on the news or read in the paper a report the Congress has "...passed a law allowing..." For example, "Arizona Set To Pass Law Allowing Guns In Bars And Restaurants."
The only way this could happen is if Congress repeals a law preventing....
So it's come to this. Kaspersky has to rely on a crappy law to avoid getting in trouble. This should be simple - freedom of speech! And the scummyness or otherwise of the plaintiff (or the defendant) should not be relevant.
It's important to remember that a lot of people aren't yet focused on bluray. DVD ripping was a must have and many different open-source and closed-source programs popped up over the years because DVD had critical mass. As a previous ex-blu-ray-early-adapter, it may be that people just don't care about blu-ray the same way.. yet. I think if blu-ray ever catches on like DVD did, the story would be different.
I think the cart is before the horse. DVD attained critical mass because it was easily rippable. BD are not easily rippable (yet) and therefore will not achieve critical mass (yet).
Personally, I think diversity is a Good Thing. It avoids the formation of a monoculture, groupthink and organizations susceptible to a single adverse event (see Wall Street). Of course diversity is not measured by skin color, but by many factors, such as culture, education, language, gender, sexual orientation, origin, tolerance of risk, and finally, character. When Bozeman says it wants to check job candidates' "character", you can be sure that it is not to create diversity, but to eliminate anyone with an original thought.
Bozeman is not unique in this regard, which is why I look at corporations' and educational institutions' pious diversity statements with such pity. Such a culture will be the loser in the long run.
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
From David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens
No Solitaire? No Tetris?
on
Vintage Games
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps they are not games in the same sense, but their DNA can be found everywhere.
No Leisure Suit Larry?!
on
Vintage Games
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
The nub of the issue is how to harden the internet against the vagaries of mob rule, special interests, fads and knees jerking. At the same time to embed freedom in such a way that the usual suspects can't dilute it, even if they try.
Whatever you might think of the USA, there is no other country in the world that could have delivered the internet in its current form, with its openness and freedoms.
However, that does not mean that the USA will remain a good custodian forever, so some insurance against future (current?) loss of liberty is appropriate.
I don't believe national governments or the UN are the answer, but am struggling to propose an alternative.
âoeWhen goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.â
Claude Frederic Bastiat 1801 - 1850
If we all used Apple or Linux then Washington would not be saddled with this problem.
You postulate a chain of logic where manufacturers would completely lock down their products, in the absence of legislation. This is possible, but not inevitable. Unconstrained market forces, in my opinion, would lead in the opposite direction. For an example, see http://www.dataliberation.org/ and http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/14/1859216/Google-Data-Liberation-Group-Seeks-To-Unlock-Data?from=rss
You mention lack of competition due to high barriers of entry. These are almost entirely created by the government. Big corporations love regulations, because it is a way for them to lock out new entrants. Another example: Vehicle manufacturers cannot sell directly to customers, they have to set up a dealer network. Disintermediation is not allowed.
Yes, I am a Libertarian.
No evil...?
SHATTUP!!
Don't get me wrong - there is a place for a (rational) green movement, regulation of the commons and preventing harm. It's just that "unnecessarily horrific" is emotive and not objective. I am very familiar with Bhopal, which was tragic. However, there were many causes, mostly not to do with science. Third-world countries in the modern era are that way for a reason, which has nothing to do with science. Anyway, industrial disasters happen everywhere, not just to brown people.
But what is the alternative? No industry? No. Better regulations? Yes. But a government that allows a teeming slum to develop next to a facility like Bhopal is at least partly complicit. Despite this disaster, the nett impact of all such plants remains positive.
Anyway, we are in agreement. The problem is one of perception. It starts with the drumbeat of negative media, which then falls on the fertile ground of scientific ignorance. This has become a self-perpetuating cycle, which somehow must be broken.
You ask for an reason why an industry can not be safe and non-polluting from its beginning? Let me give a random example. In olden days, steel was made in a "bloomery". This was labor-intensive, dangerous, polluting and expensive. Steel was very expensive. The process evolved through several stages until Bessemer invented the blast furnace. Steel could be made cheaply in large quantities, relatively safely. However, the process is highly polluting. Because the steel was cheap, it became affordable to add pollution control. But this could not occur until the blast furnace was proven and established. At the same time, perceptions of the public had to change. If a law existed preventing steelmaking pollution, steel would never have developed in to an industry, and the world would have been very different.
You've almost got it. Sure, rivers were polluted, but now they are not - we have the technology to fix it. Safety standards have been developed. All the while life expectancies and quality of life improved. And if you think a mythical, idyllic subsistance agrarian utopia ever existed, think again - it was/is nasty, short and brutish, or "social cost" in your euphemistic words. Ask any third-world person which he would prefer.
If we said that rivers can never be polluted, then the industries would never have been built. The end result of such path would be a lower standard of living.
"...running industry as a terrifying dehumanized process..." This applies only to someone who does not understand it.
In short, you are an example of our society, which fears progress, fears the unknown (which is pretty much everything) and where "the perfect if the enemy of the good".
P.S. What is your point in referring to "poor brown people"?
I am a chemical engineer and very engaged in the sciences. Naturally I try to pass on this enthusiasm to my sons who are in middle school. The elder is struggling with math - he is disinterested. He says he is not going to pursue a career in the sciences, so he need not know any math. He does not feel the need to understand how things work. There is no value in this intellectual effort. My neighbor, a music teacher, is disturbed that I spray weed killer on my lawn. In her eyes, the fact that I am a chemical engineer is a disqualification for making an informed decision on the matter.
This is very discouraging to me. Such a mass of people electing representatives is going to lead to poor public policy. For example, literally millions have died in Africa due to the banning of DDT. Sure, DDT has a downside, but not worse than dying of malaria.
Somewhere along the line, we lost our appetite for imposing ourselves on Nature, taking risks and making the the world a better place. This involves accepting that mistakes will be made, but that overall, in the long run, things will be better through human ingenuity. Now, there is such a fear of the unknown (= scientific ignorance) and the unforseen that we are becoming a paralyzed culture. Where previously we would glory in "taming" a river and building a Hoover dam, all we see now is the desecration of the noble earth. We are so scared that we cannot cope with the consequences of global warming that we are willing to reverse progress deliberately! This is unprecedented in history, and does not require scientific understanding.
Its time to send the telephone sanitizers on a quest.
See http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm
As usual, the Chinese are stealing ideas from us (government interference in free enterprise, that is).
Seems to me the bandwidth will be at least an order of magnitude more than HDTV. Methinks the delivery will be a problem.
Everyone is arguing about the reality or not of global warming.
In my opinion the focus should be on the future consequences. What's the point in spending more money on preventing a harm than the cost of the harm itself? Especially if not 100% certain, and discounted to a present value?
I'm tired of the conservatives (with a little c) who cannot accept any change in the world.
The kids around here are being told not to put anything on Facebook or Myspace, because it will last "forever", and embarrass and cost them jobs when they are grown up.
The Egyptians complained about the English "stealing" their cotton spinning and weaving business. The English complained about the Yankee New Englanders, who complained about the Southerners, who complained about the Mexicans, who complained about the Malaysians who are complaining about the Chinese and Indians.
When I say "complained", I mean passed laws and regulations, imposed sanctions, taxes and duties, fought wars, battled smuggling, and whined.
In the long run, the laws of econonics ALWAYS win. The US should fix the causes, not the symptoms.
This whole stunt is bogus. They were never locked up in a simulator in Russia at all.
It is all an elaborate cover-up of an actual mission to Mars.
I have proof - did you see the flag not flutter?
I am always annoyed when I hear on the news or read in the paper a report the Congress has "...passed a law allowing..." For example, "Arizona Set To Pass Law Allowing Guns In Bars And Restaurants."
The only way this could happen is if Congress repeals a law preventing....
The 9th and 10th Amendments are my favorites!
So it's come to this. Kaspersky has to rely on a crappy law to avoid getting in trouble. This should be simple - freedom of speech! And the scummyness or otherwise of the plaintiff (or the defendant) should not be relevant.
It's important to remember that a lot of people aren't yet focused on bluray. DVD ripping was a must have and many different open-source and closed-source programs popped up over the years because DVD had critical mass. As a previous ex-blu-ray-early-adapter, it may be that people just don't care about blu-ray the same way.. yet. I think if blu-ray ever catches on like DVD did, the story would be different.
I think the cart is before the horse. DVD attained critical mass because it was easily rippable. BD are not easily rippable (yet) and therefore will not achieve critical mass (yet).
The same organization in charge of AA, is now in charge of GM. I look forward to more successful product launches!
Personally, I think diversity is a Good Thing. It avoids the formation of a monoculture, groupthink and organizations susceptible to a single adverse event (see Wall Street). Of course diversity is not measured by skin color, but by many factors, such as culture, education, language, gender, sexual orientation, origin, tolerance of risk, and finally, character. When Bozeman says it wants to check job candidates' "character", you can be sure that it is not to create diversity, but to eliminate anyone with an original thought.
Bozeman is not unique in this regard, which is why I look at corporations' and educational institutions' pious diversity statements with such pity. Such a culture will be the loser in the long run.
IF RIAA loses, then look forward to retroactive immunity and a moving of the goalposts, a la the telcoms illegal wiretapping.
The lure of a mainframe and a TTY!
All you need is the Micawber Principle:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
From David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens
Perhaps they are not games in the same sense, but their DNA can be found everywhere.
GTA and Sims for the price of one!
NASA cannot make it to the Mos Eisley Cantina on the planet Tatooine where the crew can have a few beers and tease the imperial storm troopers
Why not?