Just the other day, I was at Borders (the brick and mortar version) looking at nothing in particular. Mostly Java books. I had been trying the get NT at home to do something useful, and had gotten pretty frustrated with it. (Not unusual)
My girlfriend walked up with a RedHat Linux (6.5 I think) box, and said that she thought I might be interested in this Linux. (I think she initially picked it up because of the cute penguin on the box.:) )
I told her I wouldn't be buying it, since it's free and I can get it, and a slew of applications for it, without spending a dime. The confused look I got in response to the 'free operating system' phrase prompted me to skip the 'free beer vs free speach' diatribe.
Instead, we went out for Tacos.:)
There's a huge amount of confusion among the 'general public' regarding 'free software'. People just can't seem to get their head around the idea of getting something for nothing. Or the benefits of freely contributing to a community. I think this is mostly an American phenomenon, since here 'there is no free lunch'.
It's like Larry Wall said: (paraphrase) It's like we're doing Windows users a favor by charging them for something they can get for free. It keeps them from getting confused.
Re:Childhood's End - true SciFi
on
Childhood's End
·
· Score: 1
Agreed. And further, one of the most poignant points Clarke makes is about destiny. It tracks well with my overall philosophy.
We are a piece of the world, and a product of nature (or something greater than ourselves in any case). As such, we do not have dominion over the Universe/Creation/Earth whatever.. It has dominion over us. It (provided you believe in a greater consciousness/higher power) may have it's own designs for us, it's own plans. The 'greater scheme of things' of which we are part, is precisely our destiny. Not what we want, but what is wanted of us. In effect, on a deep level, the book is about giving up control over the self, since what that makes possible is so much greater.
Oddly, this intuitively clicks with the whole of the Open Source movement.:)
It's a disturbing concept on one hand, that we are not in control of where we are going, except that to refuse is to perish. We either surrender our fate to the greater will, or we end our part in it all and remove ourselves from it's control through mass suicide. In any case, it's the end of our race.
On the other hand however, the plans the Universe may hold for us are greater than anything we now have the capacity to imagine. By giving ourselves over to the greater will, we stand to gain everything, and lose nothing. Very Buddist/Taoist in concept, the idea of maturing into Brahman or flowing into the Universal Consciousness...
And Lawrence Fishbourne's major (John the Baptist) character was what? I suppose that by the same reasoning, the character of Switch was just there to fill the 'butch' quota. Feh! I don't buy it.
I was initially confused by the Oracle. I expected an old woman, wise and vague... I was treated to a very HUMAN, nurturing, compassionate PERSON. Someone who baked cookies and was the anti-thesis of the machine. Life experience.
Maybe the skin color was intentional, but not to fill a quota. It may be my prejudicial white view, but I've always found black people more expressive emotionally than whites. Maybe this is a cultural archetype that was being utilized. The Oracle for humans beaten down by machines was one which (to me at least) sybolized feeling, expressiveness, and, dare I say it, SOUL.
For the record, I mean no disrespect, and I can't dance to a beat to save my life.
The Matrix UI wasn't there to let it's 'users' control the machine. The whole key to Neo's 'psychic' ability was that he transcended the 'real world' metaphor, which in the context of the metaphor, was shown as super-natural/super-human. The system couldn't accurately represent Neo's level of interaction with the computer, so it improvised.
"Any means of interaction beyond the UI interface metaphor is indistinguishable from magic" - w/apologies to A. C. Clarke.:)
Childhood's End - true SciFi
on
Childhood's End
·
· Score: 4
I would caution everyone reading this review to consider the meaning of good sci-fi versus books written for entertainment. True sci-fi is deeper, and the world it presents is there to make a point, not to 'wow' you into buying a sequel.
Childhood's End is a gem, in the true sci-fi genre. As is Wells' Time Machine. TM is laughable by modern entertainment standards, but the subject matter is arguably more true now than when it was first written.
TM was written in the social context of the industrial revolution, and it's a cautionary tale which speculates on what may be is the industrial-age haves and have-nots continue on their then-existing paths. We have a similar have/have-not situation now, in the industrial age. Most of us 'haves' map well to the Wellesian Morlocks. Think about it.
Childhood's End was written at a time of high tension between the US and the USSR. We were trying to out do one another, and the race to the moon was a good way to posture superiority. The fact was, we were itching for a fight, but couldn't afford one considering the nuclear repercussions.
The arrival of the Overlords, their power and complete subjugation of the world's authority over it's percieved/chosen destiny was a crushing blow to mankind as portrayed in the book. This is where the formality of interactions comes from. We were afraid of being controlled, we couldn't fight back, we had to behave 'well'.
All the while we were treated well, all our problems were taken care of, and we had time for leisure. Consider Maslow's pyramid of needs... Kerellian (Care Alien) and the Overlords created conditions ripe for our spontaneous maturation. By solving our problems for us, they allowed us to make our transcendence into Adulthood.
The story is brilliant. The bitter irony of the alien's true form, and mission. Their role in the elevation of humanity out of Childhood. Knowing our fate and knowing that they were charged with our fruition. Knowing their own full potential.
Read the original book, not the revision. Clarke foresaw a great number of modern day items. (somehow he missed the personal computer though)
Also, keep in mind religion, and Shelly's Mont Blanc.
That piece made sense to me (much was fluffy, for the purposes of entertainment).. It wasn't about psychic power, it was about interfacing with the computer.
Every person was a ksh shell. Instead of a text interface, the API was sensory. (make a leap of faith, it's sci-fi) All running in standard user mode. The machine was in charge and could renice everyone as the automated routines and daemons (agents) saw fit. Neo had the potential to su -root on the system. Well, actually more than that, he had the ability to adjust the hidden/local variables of the OS.
A person can always out think a video game AI. Always. The advantage that video games have is speed, not intelligence. Eventually the human is simply out-gunned, and can't react fast enough.
Well, Neo could, not because he was faster than the machine, but because he could tweak the delay parameters at runtime.
What we saw on the screen was for entertainment purposes, but also (to me at least) presented an interesting concept. The ultimate user interface is one which you are not even aware of. It's totally natural, and totally transparent. It's 'real world', where your actions are ideal metaphors for what you want to do.
You may recall a few weeks ago/. had a story on a DOOM interface to process management. When you wanted to kill -9 a process, you'd actually gun it down. Sort of intuitive. The Matrix was the perfect UI, completely abstracted to reality, and then flipped around that the machine ran the people - not really, but that's another topic.
I perticularly liked the idea of 'looking at the actual code' rather than it's rendering. It's the best way to debug.:)
It's really too bad that the Wachowski brothers can't make a fillum (sic) as good as The Matrix, but about Calculus. I could have really used that back in College.
Imagine the same noir scenery. A lone function f(x) is just a mundane polynomial, but if you look in the table of contents, you know it's destined to perform derivatives, integrations (by parts when necessary), and even Fournier analysis.
f(x): When I am ready, will I be able to perform Reimann summation?
The tweak in the Oracle scene for me was the vase sequence. Would Neo have broken it had his attention not been brought to it by the Oracle?
Sort of parallels with Heisenberg as applied to psychology. Once you are made aware of something, you can't help but pay attention to it. It's like someone saying "Don't look at that guys nose"...
There's a whole fate/predeterminism vs free-will discussion in there as well... And it feeds well into the whole issue of Neo becoming The One by choosing to 'walk the path' in addition to being 'destined' to be The One through 'knowing the path'.
Interesting that once Neo decided to give up on his destiny, and sacrifice himself to save Morpheus (reasoning that Morpheus could do more good for mankind than Neo himself), he actually fulfilled his destiny. He chose to go against it and thereby brought it to fruition.
The Oracle scene holds enough meat for a couple of philosophy courses, and probably a psych class while at it.
Ok everyone, I have read Huxley. My post was purely on the scientific potential of this development. Right or wrong was never part of the equation.
Do I think this can be misused, certainly. So can anything. Do I think that it holds huge potential for scientific advance? Absolutely.
Two major points to respond to:
First Using identical twins for Nature v. Nurture is a good step, but identical octuplets would be even better. Especially ones separated at birth, and raised in different environments. I've never met such people. Now, I'm not suggesting trying this with people. Primates will do just fine. Maybe even white mice.
Then we can make, oh, say, a hundred. And subject groups of ten to different environments. Lots of mazes for one group. Nicotine and alcohol for another. An overcrowded cage for a third. Gay rat parents for a fourth... See where I'm going? Can't do a controlled experiment like this with people. Animals, while still iffy, are much more palletable. (arguably I admit)
Here is where we visit the Brave New World, but try to prevent it. If we can identify the environmental factors responsible for social stratification (other than $$ obviously ) then, if nothing else, we have a better informed public who is aware of the effects of addictions, education, lifestyle, abuse, etc. It will give people a better understanding, and thereby CHOICES.
If as a result of gene-restricted testing, we can prove the effects of chemical exposure, learning habits, peer influence - well we can definitively solve a lot of prejudicial and assumption-driven problems. For example, there are still people who feel that blacks are inferior to whites. I'm not one, but you must admit it's true (that there are such people).
Genetic baseline testing could rule out environmental factors. We could also subject different gene-bases to identical environments and quantify definitively the influence of gene differences. I know it's far off, but we CAN work in that direction, and at least address some of the fundamental questions.
Second We can't effectively model in a computer those things that we do not really understand. Minds are one thing (that's handled in the above paragraph), effects of gene therapy is another thing. We can make reasonable assumptions, take educated guesses, and run sim after sim. But eventually, we'll HAVE to do live tests before such treatments can be applied to healing people. It would be tremendously helpful to keep individual genetic variations of the subjects down to a minimum, so any changes we see are likely not the result of individual differences. I.E. if all your tumor-prone subjects in the control group develop one as a result of a carcinogen, but your test group (with the same genome) does not develop a single one, then you can be reasonably sure (if your sample is large enough - like the aforementioned 100 monkeys (or 12 Monkeys:))) that your treatment is successful.
If you can not rule out individual differences, you need a bigger sample (to reduce probabilities) and more tests for consistent results.
So this 'new' technique for pseudo-cloning has great potential, without the added complexity of actual gene-level cloning. It has a slew of moral/ethical issues attached - but no fewer than cloning on the genetic level. It's less 'pure' than cloning, since even identical twins have genetic differences (always confused me WHY, but it's true) so true cloning is better for my suggested applications than these 'tweens'. I suppose that even pure clones will have genetic variation due to mutations during gestation, yadda yadda IANAgenetecist.
And if the cost of tweening is much cheaper than that of cloning, which way will it go first? Right.
It's not cloning by a long shot, but creating identical twins on demand has huge benefits.
For one, you can create a significant population for a 'nature vs. nurture' study.
Two, with an identical genetic baseline, all with a specific genetic defect, you can do comparative studies of different treatments. Since treatment on the genetic level is likely to be affected by the genetics of the individual being treated, a 'same' baseline allows for much more reasonable studies of treatment effectiveness.
Three, again a common genetic foundation in animals engineered to produce a hormone, or grow organs or whatever have you, is going to result in a much more consistent product. And Animal Farm (heh) can essencially be a mass-production assembly line, with little or no variance in the 'components'.
You can tweak a brood of embryos, analyse the yield, terminate those that are not desirable for your needs, and 'twin' the ones that are. No need to repeat the original impregnation and creation of life - since nature will do that for you. You just pick the good 'fruit' and reproduce it on an assembly line.
It's nothing like that./. is so suspicious and so conspiraphilic...
The truth is much, much simpler.
The basic building blocks of life are sprinkled throughout our solar system. They didn't originate here though.
They are the leftovers of an interstellar cruise ship blowing it's toilet waste into space (against regulations I might add) as it passed (no pun int) through our uninhabited and totally uninteresting area. Our cruise ships do the same kind of stuff all the time.
The dumped waste trail froze, circled the sun for a few million years, and crash landed on several planets. Europa probably got the lion share of what didn't get sucked into Jupiter. But Earth, due to it's balmy temperatures, is the only place where the waste could thaw.
Sort of puts a whole new perspective on the origins of mankind, doesn't it? We're 5 billion year old alien crap.
What if the bacteria came here to run for the N.Y. Senate seat?? They're trying to take over the Earth from the inside out. Mulder was right. And what's worse, Linux is too little too late.
Next week on Letterman, Dave interviews a Martian bacterium!!
I saw the same show. Had me captivated. Absolutely fascinating.
My thinking during the show was in terms of the Martian meteor found in Antarctica a few years back. It MAY be from Mars, sure. But, I'd tend to think that until we find similar rocks there, we should reserve judgement on the rocks origin. It's just as possible that the 'Martian' meteorite came from Earth Mk.I... It's further possible that if we DO find similar rocks on Mars (but not in abundance) then those too might be from Earth Mk.I.... So in a way, going to Mars might be either going home, or going there AGAIN.
As for some additional meat from the "If we had no Moon" program.. The collision with Orpheus (the planet that WAS between Earth Mk.I and Mars) wiped out all life on Earth. But, it may not have wiped out all life-yielding materials (organics, sub-microbes). The original Earth is speculated to have contained significantly more water than it does now. Most of it was lost in the collision.
The computer simulations of the collision were very intimidating. The Earth was badly mangled, losing it's spherical shape entirely, and literally turning inside out. The simulations didn't show what happened later (much later) but I wonder if Mars might not be what's left of Orpheus... Speculating, speculating. Anyone KNOW?
If I understand the difference between patents and trade secrets correctly, after a finite time, a patent passes to the public domain. Correct? Furthermore, a patent does not prevent competitor research (refinement of the patented item or process), it only prevents the marketting of it and profitting from it.
Now, the patent term is what, 7 years?
In gene technology, with it's profound effects on humanity and biology everywhere, a 7 year proving-ground for a process is a Good Thing. If a single company does the testing, works out the kinks, and provides the benefit of the technology in a limited (by being a single source) way, while everyone else learns from their example/mistakes, then by the time the patent expires, the technology is more mature, and therefore safer.
It wasn't until the PC 'matured' that the clone market really took off. The standards were laid and defined first. We saw what tended to work, and what fell flat on it's face. Once 'this works' was established, everyone jumped in and found ways of doing it cheaply. If we took a similar path with genetics, then a single (probably huge) company will get a head start. Either because they can afford the up-front research, or because they buy out a small innovator (and their patent). A company such as this will be heavily scrutinized, and controlled by the government to a greater extent than a small, independent, Taiwanese gene-slicing clone maker. They will be held more accountable during the term of the patent, and the technology will be raised according to regulations, and not the profit driven free-market.
Of course, I could be totally off the mark, since Apple seems to have a stranglehold on it's products. Are they holding patents, or is more involved?
You know, of all the articles to post to, with such a defeatists attitude, one on civil liberties should be the last.
There is a difference between hacker and cracker. It's not just a word, any more so than nigger, faggot, heeb or any other slurr. It has a meaning, given to it a long time ago.
The definition of 'hacker' is quite elusive, but as such it gives us a sense of searching for identity - like any emerging culture. 'Cracker' OTOH is well defined and there are few who misunderstand it north of the Mason-Dixon line.
'Hacker' hails from doing things roughly, as with an axe or hack-saw. It suggests solving problems in the 'ad-hoc' style. (Contrast with 'Engineer', as few engineers see themselves as hackers and few hackers are formally schooled to be engineers) Over time, the definition evolved to imply a certain virtuosity to the method of problem solving - hence a hacker is a talented programmer.
The idea is an immortal virus. For so long as one person holds true to the definition of a word, and makes a point of educating the 'differently-informed', the idea lives, and the history of the word, and whence it came, is carried on.
'Communist' and 'socialist' are just words. Too few people stand up for what they really mean. The 'reat of the nation' has the incorrect connotation, and the misconception just gets deeper. If I were to claim to be a communist in the middle of town square, it would get the undesired sort of attention.
Freedom is a word, yet people have fought, killed and died for it over centuries. Liberty and privacy are just words. If you're so willing to give up on 'hacker', then why even take part in a discussion on 'privacy'. Let someone else (i.e. the Federal Gummint) define it for you.
I know that this is being very dramatic, but a bit of drama is needed IMO. As soon as you let someone who is uninformed define who you are, you cease to be yourself. If the general population is steered to see 'hacker' as nefarious, then they will regard hackers with fear and suspicion. Most of us don't warrant that attitude. This is why we keep on fighting for that label, for the clean reputation of the term we use to describe ourselves.
If the rest of the nation adopts the idea of abortion as a valid means of chosing the gender of a child, would that suddenly make it ok to do so?
What's more, with AOL TW in charge of the 'big picture', if it seems that the rest of the nation has accepted something, does that mean that they really did?
New paradigm... It makes sense
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 5
The two announcements (AOL and IBM) are not diametrically opposed, as Jon suggests. In fact, they are perfectly aligned. Check this out...
The AOL TW merger shows that this new behemoth would be the King of Content on all media.
The adoption of Linux by the waning Kinng of Hardware suggests that open source is the way of the future. Open hardware is sure to follow open software eventually, though not without strong opposition from the patent and trademark holders.
But, the people in control of proprietary hardware are sure to get a clue from the AOL TW super-entity. Content is the new commodity.
Linux has taken away the means, of controlling the means, of producing content. The Internet has given any Joe Shmoe the means to distribute it. The Computer has given everyone the tool to create content. Content is the new commodity.
To make any money, and have any power, you have to control CONTENT, not how it's made, not how it's distributed. It's economies of scale in the context of content.
AOL TW can out-content EVERYONE now. They can producte is faster, in greater volume, due to their bulk. They can distribute it faster and more cheaply. They can shout louder and longer than anyone else. With the exception of the occasional "I kiss you" and a little hampsterdance, nobody will have the opportunity to get unbiased media, simply because of the volume (yes, I mean it both ways) of AOL TW.
Now were back to the old days. Hammers and chisels (Linux) are free. It takes talent to be Michelangelo - and he died piss poor.
It's now all about the production of content. Technology is free and plentiful, and we're all free to use it. But, just because you have freedom of speach (or tech) does not mean you have anything intelligent to say. Or worse yet, you do, but nobody wants to hear it because AOL TW is showing interactive Jerry Springer.
There I'd draw the line. Being required to buy something is wrong. (Don't ask me about car insurance being mandatory, but not available from the State)
If government money is used to fund the service (like a library) then the government can set up guidelines that control policy. Of course this assumes that we (the voting public) control the government... (Heh. See above insurance knee-jerk.)
But 'computers used by adults' smells of Liz Dole sitting in my living room. Next thing we'll be required to do is wearing arm badges with our ethnic symbols on them.
What needs to be made clear to the people who think that they are in charge is that they are wrong. The sovereign entity in the United States is the Individual, not the State. Keep yer laws off my body, and keep yer policies out of my home.
I know everyone realizes this fact, but nobody seems to have mentioned it yet.
It costs a lot of money to do (national and local) broadcasting. This is where advertising revenue comes in. All the customer has to pay for is the TV set, and the electricity. If it were not for advertising, we would have 15 minutes per hour of pledge breaks, or worse yet, we'd have to pay a premium (over cable or satellite service fees) to the broadcasters.
A different system, where we are billed for time spent watching a particular station, might be better. First off, content might be better, since it would actually be 'our' money paying for what we spend our time watching, and we'd be more discriminating. Second, products might actually be cheaper and better, since they wouldn't carry the cost of advertising in the price tag, and would have to sell themselves on their actual merrits instead of cute or cleaver advertising (Bud, Weis, Errrr). Third, we'd spend less time watching TV, since it would cost money to do so, so we would do more valuable things, like reading, coding, and actually raising our kids. There's also the fringe benefit of not leaving the TV running when you leave the room. The whole face of marketting would be different, since merit and value would be the predominant sales point, instead of image...
But that's not the system that is in place. It's not the system that has been shown to work well for those who are in control of it and who benefit by it.
My SYSTEM (tm):), can be implemented with existing technology. Telephone or ISP style billing at a rate near that of electricity, with ReplayTV functionality, with possibly different price points for HDTV and old-style quality. Maybe we could get to the point of giving away TV sets with a three year subscription...
I sure hope AOL Time Warner doesn't read this post before I file for a patent... [sigh]
Wow, so we'll have to actually read the source code for the evening news to be sure of it. Not only of it's accuracy or lack of spin, but also it's reality. Interesting.
Well, maybe the proliferation of internet access and connected wireless devices will be good in this resepect as well. We'll be able to take advantage of omnipresence, and draw our own conclusions. For example,
It was priceless to me to hear directly from people in Seattle (via/.) about what was happening during the WTO 'riots'. I have a much better understanding that I would have from the evening news.
The military actions in Bosnia were heard of through the people there, on usenet. People who had bombs going off down the street were writing about it, and the world on-line had the option of knowing things first hand.
The dissemination of the truth, by private individuals, is not foolproof. There's bias and ignorance and assumption. But I suspect that it will/does work much like the opensource development process. You just can't tell a lie when there are other people, who know the truth, listening and able to speak. Just like you can't sneak a virus, or a back door, into a piece of open source code.
Goebbels was a brilliant propagandist. All that the reference implied to me was that this is a brilliant tool for propaganda.
Being able to distort reality towards any means is very impressive. For example, showing a local businesses logo on one of the boards of an international soccer match would make the company appear larger than life. Putting a M.A.D.D. logo in place of a Budweiser one would raise the cause to a higher status. Being able to elevate any agenda to a more prominent position than it holds, and thereby really placing it in the forefront of people's minds, is very Goebbels.
Goebbels was one of the greatest marketting geniuses of history. He managed to sell genocide to the masses, he justified it and made people believe it was the right thing. He made it into something people rooted for, or at least wouldn't speak out against. Not even Microsoft has been more successful. Goebbels did his job, right or wrong is not at issue. Much like Johnny Cochran did his job defending O.J., right or wrong was not at issue.
If anything, the Goebbels reference is a warning, and as such, it's the most effective reference that could be found.
I've always found it interesting that the U.S. is the most Puritanical nation in the world. Sure, the Brits have some pretty stringent social norms, but their punks out 'punk' out punks any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I've always thought it a bit amusing that the people who founded the U.S. (historically and culturally if not politically)were Puritans, but the nation's most valued prize are the Freedoms Of Speach and Expression. Our (your, whatever) forefathers left Europe to establish a place where they could be free to practice their religion, and be free to be intolerant of basal human functions.
Americans are down-right freaky about personal hygiene for example. No where in Europe are people so obsessed with cleanliness. Sure, a bidet is common, but people frequently do not bother to shower everyday. Here, people skip showers, but won't ever admit it. Deodorants and shaved armpits on European women?? Nah!
So we come back to the most basal of human factors, sex. Americans are prudish, easily embarassed and completely unskilled in sex, romance and flirtation. How many of you had parents who would spell out S E X, rather than say the word in front of you? But everyone gets giddy and titilated by the concept of sex. If this wasn't so, day-time soaps would not be 50% love scenes, and Rikki Lake would be selling jeans at Lane Bryant. Oooh!! Sex. Sex! SEX!!! Big freaking whoop.
Personally, I think that this overfixation with sexual topics comes from not having any 'native' cultural artifacts depicting the human form. No Venus de Milo, no Statue of Adonis. No Greek urns or Italian frescoes. No Bolero.
In Europe, and Asia for that matter, sex is part of the culture, whereas here it's percieved as dirty. It is outside of the normal, it's secret and hidden and taboo. Parents don't have sex, and kids don't have the necessary equipment. This feeds much into the whole idea of molestation. "Private parts", good thouch vs bad touch... By keeping kids in the dark about sex, their American parents make them ill-equiped to talk about, confront, refuse or even identify inappropriate behavior. They are made ignorant and so vulnerable, by parents who try to 'spare them' from the 'dirty' "S" word. Why do you think they jump in the sack at 13?? Curious of the forbidden fruit, simple as that. Same dynamic with alcohol.
Through cultural deprivation of natural instincts, Americans set themselves up to a higher than global rate of perversion. Sort of a binge and purge, denial and gluttony system. Sexual denial leads to frustration, and this frustration manifests itself in a variety of ways...
Road rage. If everyone was a little less frustrated, it wouldn't happen as much. Sure there's other causes too, but maybe those stressors wouldn't be as stressful either.
Office interactions between genders shouldn't cause a person to worry about sexual harassment. You're just working with another person. Their gender matters not, and if it does then maybe you're too pent up.
Columbine. A kid with hormones running at full speed, but forced to not act, talk or even think in terms of sex... Douse that fire with gas, go ahead.
Seems that my arguments suggest that the lack of sex, or the ability to even acknowledge it as an integral part of life, results in violent behavior. What is it that is glorified in the US? What is in every movie there is?
Violence is considered an acceptable outlet for human energy, in place of sexuality, here in the US. From playing cowboys and indians in our early youth, to watching the Cowboys and the Indians duke it out on the tube, to seeing John Wayne and Clint Eastwood blasting away Running Bear. These are American heroes. Not Don Juan, not Cassanova. Not even the faithful husband. A 60% divorce rate? Why? Unfulfilment. Why? DON'T KNOW HOW.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and if there's a built in barometer, it could adjust cooking times for your altitude.
Wow, with a beouwulf cluster of these, you could effortlessly run a cafeteria.
Just the other day, I was at Borders (the brick and mortar version) looking at nothing in particular. Mostly Java books. I had been trying the get NT at home to do something useful, and had gotten pretty frustrated with it. (Not unusual)
:) )
:)
My girlfriend walked up with a RedHat Linux (6.5 I think) box, and said that she thought I might be interested in this Linux. (I think she initially picked it up because of the cute penguin on the box.
I told her I wouldn't be buying it, since it's free and I can get it, and a slew of applications for it, without spending a dime. The confused look I got in response to the 'free operating system' phrase prompted me to skip the 'free beer vs free speach' diatribe.
Instead, we went out for Tacos.
There's a huge amount of confusion among the 'general public' regarding 'free software'. People just can't seem to get their head around the idea of getting something for nothing. Or the benefits of freely contributing to a community. I think this is mostly an American phenomenon, since here 'there is no free lunch'.
It's like Larry Wall said: (paraphrase) It's like we're doing Windows users a favor by charging them for something they can get for free. It keeps them from getting confused.
Agreed. And further, one of the most poignant points Clarke makes is about destiny. It tracks well with my overall philosophy.
:)
We are a piece of the world, and a product of nature (or something greater than ourselves in any case). As such, we do not have dominion over the Universe/Creation/Earth whatever.. It has dominion over us. It (provided you believe in a greater consciousness/higher power) may have it's own designs for us, it's own plans. The 'greater scheme of things' of which we are part, is precisely our destiny. Not what we want, but what is wanted of us. In effect, on a deep level, the book is about giving up control over the self, since what that makes possible is so much greater.
Oddly, this intuitively clicks with the whole of the Open Source movement.
It's a disturbing concept on one hand, that we are not in control of where we are going, except that to refuse is to perish. We either surrender our fate to the greater will, or we end our part in it all and remove ourselves from it's control through mass suicide. In any case, it's the end of our race.
On the other hand however, the plans the Universe may hold for us are greater than anything we now have the capacity to imagine. By giving ourselves over to the greater will, we stand to gain everything, and lose nothing. Very Buddist/Taoist in concept, the idea of maturing into Brahman or flowing into the Universal Consciousness...
You know what, I just don't know about that Christopher fellow.
He used to spend time with us here in the market place, but ever since Guttenberg invented printed books, he's become a recluse.
He just sits there, burning perfectly good candles at night, reading and mumbling about 'feeding his head'.
You know, I don't think he's even bothered to plow his field this season. Surely, these books are the work of the devil.
And Lawrence Fishbourne's major (John the Baptist) character was what? I suppose that by the same reasoning, the character of Switch was just there to fill the 'butch' quota. Feh! I don't buy it.
I was initially confused by the Oracle. I expected an old woman, wise and vague... I was treated to a very HUMAN, nurturing, compassionate PERSON. Someone who baked cookies and was the anti-thesis of the machine. Life experience.
Maybe the skin color was intentional, but not to fill a quota. It may be my prejudicial white view, but I've always found black people more expressive emotionally than whites. Maybe this is a cultural archetype that was being utilized. The Oracle for humans beaten down by machines was one which (to me at least) sybolized feeling, expressiveness, and, dare I say it, SOUL.
For the record, I mean no disrespect, and I can't dance to a beat to save my life.
"And you will know my name is the root when I bring my vengence upon thee!" - types rm -Rf / &
Reminds me of Pulp Simpsons. Especially the picture of Homer... "Hmmm, big KARMA burger!!" Oooh! That's FUNNY!! Ahh...
The Matrix UI wasn't there to let it's 'users' control the machine. The whole key to Neo's 'psychic' ability was that he transcended the 'real world' metaphor, which in the context of the metaphor, was shown as super-natural/super-human. The system couldn't accurately represent Neo's level of interaction with the computer, so it improvised.
:)
"Any means of interaction beyond the UI interface metaphor is indistinguishable from magic" - w/apologies to A. C. Clarke.
I would caution everyone reading this review to consider the meaning of good sci-fi versus books written for entertainment. True sci-fi is deeper, and the world it presents is there to make a point, not to 'wow' you into buying a sequel.
Childhood's End is a gem, in the true sci-fi genre. As is Wells' Time Machine. TM is laughable by modern entertainment standards, but the subject matter is arguably more true now than when it was first written.
TM was written in the social context of the industrial revolution, and it's a cautionary tale which speculates on what may be is the industrial-age haves and have-nots continue on their then-existing paths. We have a similar have/have-not situation now, in the industrial age. Most of us 'haves' map well to the Wellesian Morlocks. Think about it.
Childhood's End was written at a time of high tension between the US and the USSR. We were trying to out do one another, and the race to the moon was a good way to posture superiority. The fact was, we were itching for a fight, but couldn't afford one considering the nuclear repercussions.
The arrival of the Overlords, their power and complete subjugation of the world's authority over it's percieved/chosen destiny was a crushing blow to mankind as portrayed in the book. This is where the formality of interactions comes from. We were afraid of being controlled, we couldn't fight back, we had to behave 'well'.
All the while we were treated well, all our problems were taken care of, and we had time for leisure. Consider Maslow's pyramid of needs... Kerellian (Care Alien) and the Overlords created conditions ripe for our spontaneous maturation. By solving our problems for us, they allowed us to make our transcendence into Adulthood.
The story is brilliant. The bitter irony of the alien's true form, and mission. Their role in the elevation of humanity out of Childhood. Knowing our fate and knowing that they were charged with our fruition. Knowing their own full potential.
Read the original book, not the revision. Clarke foresaw a great number of modern day items. (somehow he missed the personal computer though)
Also, keep in mind religion, and Shelly's Mont Blanc.
I tried to not give anything away. Really, I did.
That piece made sense to me (much was fluffy, for the purposes of entertainment).. It wasn't about psychic power, it was about interfacing with the computer.
/. had a story on a DOOM interface to process management. When you wanted to kill -9 a process, you'd actually gun it down. Sort of intuitive. The Matrix was the perfect UI, completely abstracted to reality, and then flipped around that the machine ran the people - not really, but that's another topic.
:)
Every person was a ksh shell. Instead of a text interface, the API was sensory. (make a leap of faith, it's sci-fi) All running in standard user mode. The machine was in charge and could renice everyone as the automated routines and daemons (agents) saw fit. Neo had the potential to su -root on the system. Well, actually more than that, he had the ability to adjust the hidden/local variables of the OS.
A person can always out think a video game AI. Always. The advantage that video games have is speed, not intelligence. Eventually the human is simply out-gunned, and can't react fast enough.
Well, Neo could, not because he was faster than the machine, but because he could tweak the delay parameters at runtime.
What we saw on the screen was for entertainment purposes, but also (to me at least) presented an interesting concept. The ultimate user interface is one which you are not even aware of. It's totally natural, and totally transparent. It's 'real world', where your actions are ideal metaphors for what you want to do.
You may recall a few weeks ago
I perticularly liked the idea of 'looking at the actual code' rather than it's rendering. It's the best way to debug.
It's really too bad that the Wachowski brothers can't make a fillum (sic) as good as The Matrix, but about Calculus. I could have really used that back in College.
Imagine the same noir scenery. A lone function f(x) is just a mundane polynomial, but if you look in the table of contents, you know it's destined to perform derivatives, integrations (by parts when necessary), and even Fournier analysis.
f(x): When I am ready, will I be able to perform Reimann summation?
g(x): When you are ready, you won't have to...
Wow...
The tweak in the Oracle scene for me was the vase sequence. Would Neo have broken it had his attention not been brought to it by the Oracle?
Sort of parallels with Heisenberg as applied to psychology. Once you are made aware of something, you can't help but pay attention to it. It's like someone saying "Don't look at that guys nose"...
There's a whole fate/predeterminism vs free-will discussion in there as well... And it feeds well into the whole issue of Neo becoming The One by choosing to 'walk the path' in addition to being 'destined' to be The One through 'knowing the path'.
Interesting that once Neo decided to give up on his destiny, and sacrifice himself to save Morpheus (reasoning that Morpheus could do more good for mankind than Neo himself), he actually fulfilled his destiny. He chose to go against it and thereby brought it to fruition.
The Oracle scene holds enough meat for a couple of philosophy courses, and probably a psych class while at it.
Ok everyone, I have read Huxley. My post was purely on the scientific potential of this development. Right or wrong was never part of the equation.
:))) that your treatment is successful.
Do I think this can be misused, certainly. So can anything. Do I think that it holds huge potential for scientific advance? Absolutely.
Two major points to respond to:
First Using identical twins for Nature v. Nurture is a good step, but identical octuplets would be even better. Especially ones separated at birth, and raised in different environments. I've never met such people. Now, I'm not suggesting trying this with people. Primates will do just fine. Maybe even white mice.
Then we can make, oh, say, a hundred. And subject groups of ten to different environments. Lots of mazes for one group. Nicotine and alcohol for another. An overcrowded cage for a third. Gay rat parents for a fourth... See where I'm going? Can't do a controlled experiment like this with people. Animals, while still iffy, are much more palletable. (arguably I admit)
Here is where we visit the Brave New World, but try to prevent it. If we can identify the environmental factors responsible for social stratification (other than $$ obviously ) then, if nothing else, we have a better informed public who is aware of the effects of addictions, education, lifestyle, abuse, etc. It will give people a better understanding, and thereby CHOICES.
If as a result of gene-restricted testing, we can prove the effects of chemical exposure, learning habits, peer influence - well we can definitively solve a lot of prejudicial and assumption-driven problems. For example, there are still people who feel that blacks are inferior to whites. I'm not one, but you must admit it's true (that there are such people).
Genetic baseline testing could rule out environmental factors. We could also subject different gene-bases to identical environments and quantify definitively the influence of gene differences. I know it's far off, but we CAN work in that direction, and at least address some of the fundamental questions.
Second We can't effectively model in a computer those things that we do not really understand. Minds are one thing (that's handled in the above paragraph), effects of gene therapy is another thing. We can make reasonable assumptions, take educated guesses, and run sim after sim. But eventually, we'll HAVE to do live tests before such treatments can be applied to healing people.
It would be tremendously helpful to keep individual genetic variations of the subjects down to a minimum, so any changes we see are likely not the result of individual differences. I.E. if all your tumor-prone subjects in the control group develop one as a result of a carcinogen, but your test group (with the same genome) does not develop a single one, then you can be reasonably sure (if your sample is large enough - like the aforementioned 100 monkeys (or 12 Monkeys
If you can not rule out individual differences, you need a bigger sample (to reduce probabilities) and more tests for consistent results.
So this 'new' technique for pseudo-cloning has great potential, without the added complexity of actual gene-level cloning. It has a slew of moral/ethical issues attached - but no fewer than cloning on the genetic level. It's less 'pure' than cloning, since even identical twins have genetic differences (always confused me WHY, but it's true) so true cloning is better for my suggested applications than these 'tweens'. I suppose that even pure clones will have genetic variation due to mutations during gestation, yadda yadda IANAgenetecist.
And if the cost of tweening is much cheaper than that of cloning, which way will it go first? Right.
It's not cloning by a long shot, but creating identical twins on demand has huge benefits.
For one, you can create a significant population for a 'nature vs. nurture' study.
Two, with an identical genetic baseline, all with a specific genetic defect, you can do comparative studies of different treatments. Since treatment on the genetic level is likely to be affected by the genetics of the individual being treated, a 'same' baseline allows for much more reasonable studies of treatment effectiveness.
Three, again a common genetic foundation in animals engineered to produce a hormone, or grow organs or whatever have you, is going to result in a much more consistent product. And Animal Farm (heh) can essencially be a mass-production assembly line, with little or no variance in the 'components'.
You can tweak a brood of embryos, analyse the yield, terminate those that are not desirable for your needs, and 'twin' the ones that are. No need to repeat the original impregnation and creation of life - since nature will do that for you. You just pick the good 'fruit' and reproduce it on an assembly line.
It's nothing like that. /. is so suspicious and so conspiraphilic...
The truth is much, much simpler.
The basic building blocks of life are sprinkled throughout our solar system. They didn't originate here though.
They are the leftovers of an interstellar cruise ship blowing it's toilet waste into space (against regulations I might add) as it passed (no pun int) through our uninhabited and totally uninteresting area. Our cruise ships do the same kind of stuff all the time.
The dumped waste trail froze, circled the sun for a few million years, and crash landed on several planets. Europa probably got the lion share of what didn't get sucked into Jupiter. But Earth, due to it's balmy temperatures, is the only place where the waste could thaw.
Sort of puts a whole new perspective on the origins of mankind, doesn't it? We're 5 billion year old alien crap.
What if the bacteria came here to run for the N.Y. Senate seat?? They're trying to take over the Earth from the inside out. Mulder was right. And what's worse, Linux is too little too late.
Next week on Letterman, Dave interviews a Martian bacterium!!
I saw the same show. Had me captivated. Absolutely fascinating.
... So in a way, going to Mars might be either going home, or going there AGAIN.
My thinking during the show was in terms of the Martian meteor found in Antarctica a few years back. It MAY be from Mars, sure. But, I'd tend to think that until we find similar rocks there, we should reserve judgement on the rocks origin. It's just as possible that the 'Martian' meteorite came from Earth Mk.I... It's further possible that if we DO find similar rocks on Mars (but not in abundance) then those too might be from Earth Mk.I.
As for some additional meat from the "If we had no Moon" program.. The collision with Orpheus (the planet that WAS between Earth Mk.I and Mars) wiped out all life on Earth. But, it may not have wiped out all life-yielding materials (organics, sub-microbes). The original Earth is speculated to have contained significantly more water than it does now. Most of it was lost in the collision.
The computer simulations of the collision were very intimidating. The Earth was badly mangled, losing it's spherical shape entirely, and literally turning inside out. The simulations didn't show what happened later (much later) but I wonder if Mars might not be what's left of Orpheus... Speculating, speculating. Anyone KNOW?
If I understand the difference between patents and trade secrets correctly, after a finite time, a patent passes to the public domain. Correct?
Furthermore, a patent does not prevent competitor research (refinement of the patented item or process), it only prevents the marketting of it and profitting from it.
Now, the patent term is what, 7 years?
In gene technology, with it's profound effects on humanity and biology everywhere, a 7 year proving-ground for a process is a Good Thing. If a single company does the testing, works out the kinks, and provides the benefit of the technology in a limited (by being a single source) way, while everyone else learns from their example/mistakes, then by the time the patent expires, the technology is more mature, and therefore safer.
It wasn't until the PC 'matured' that the clone market really took off. The standards were laid and defined first. We saw what tended to work, and what fell flat on it's face. Once 'this works' was established, everyone jumped in and found ways of doing it cheaply. If we took a similar path with genetics, then a single (probably huge) company will get a head start. Either because they can afford the up-front research, or because they buy out a small innovator (and their patent). A company such as this will be heavily scrutinized, and controlled by the government to a greater extent than a small, independent, Taiwanese gene-slicing clone maker. They will be held more accountable during the term of the patent, and the technology will be raised according to regulations, and not the profit driven free-market.
Of course, I could be totally off the mark, since Apple seems to have a stranglehold on it's products. Are they holding patents, or is more involved?
You know, of all the articles to post to, with such a defeatists attitude, one on civil liberties should be the last.
There is a difference between hacker and cracker. It's not just a word, any more so than nigger, faggot, heeb or any other slurr. It has a meaning, given to it a long time ago.
The definition of 'hacker' is quite elusive, but as such it gives us a sense of searching for identity - like any emerging culture. 'Cracker' OTOH is well defined and there are few who misunderstand it north of the Mason-Dixon line.
'Hacker' hails from doing things roughly, as with an axe or hack-saw. It suggests solving problems in the 'ad-hoc' style. (Contrast with 'Engineer', as few engineers see themselves as hackers and few hackers are formally schooled to be engineers) Over time, the definition evolved to imply a certain virtuosity to the method of problem solving - hence a hacker is a talented programmer.
The idea is an immortal virus. For so long as one person holds true to the definition of a word, and makes a point of educating the 'differently-informed', the idea lives, and the history of the word, and whence it came, is carried on.
'Communist' and 'socialist' are just words. Too few people stand up for what they really mean. The 'reat of the nation' has the incorrect connotation, and the misconception just gets deeper. If I were to claim to be a communist in the middle of town square, it would get the undesired sort of attention.
Freedom is a word, yet people have fought, killed and died for it over centuries. Liberty and privacy are just words. If you're so willing to give up on 'hacker', then why even take part in a discussion on 'privacy'. Let someone else (i.e. the Federal Gummint) define it for you.
I know that this is being very dramatic, but a bit of drama is needed IMO. As soon as you let someone who is uninformed define who you are, you cease to be yourself. If the general population is steered to see 'hacker' as nefarious, then they will regard hackers with fear and suspicion. Most of us don't warrant that attitude. This is why we keep on fighting for that label, for the clean reputation of the term we use to describe ourselves.
If the rest of the nation adopts the idea of abortion as a valid means of chosing the gender of a child, would that suddenly make it ok to do so?
What's more, with AOL TW in charge of the 'big picture', if it seems that the rest of the nation has accepted something, does that mean that they really did?
The two announcements (AOL and IBM) are not diametrically opposed, as Jon suggests. In fact, they are perfectly aligned. Check this out...
The AOL TW merger shows that this new behemoth would be the King of Content on all media.
The adoption of Linux by the waning Kinng of Hardware suggests that open source is the way of the future. Open hardware is sure to follow open software eventually, though not without strong opposition from the patent and trademark holders.
But, the people in control of proprietary hardware are sure to get a clue from the AOL TW super-entity. Content is the new commodity.
Linux has taken away the means, of controlling the means, of producing content. The Internet has given any Joe Shmoe the means to distribute it. The Computer has given everyone the tool to create content. Content is the new commodity.
To make any money, and have any power, you have to control CONTENT, not how it's made, not how it's distributed. It's economies of scale in the context of content.
AOL TW can out-content EVERYONE now. They can producte is faster, in greater volume, due to their bulk. They can distribute it faster and more cheaply. They can shout louder and longer than anyone else. With the exception of the occasional "I kiss you" and a little hampsterdance, nobody will have the opportunity to get unbiased media, simply because of the volume (yes, I mean it both ways) of AOL TW.
Now were back to the old days. Hammers and chisels (Linux) are free. It takes talent to be Michelangelo - and he died piss poor.
It's now all about the production of content. Technology is free and plentiful, and we're all free to use it. But, just because you have freedom of speach (or tech) does not mean you have anything intelligent to say. Or worse yet, you do, but nobody wants to hear it because AOL TW is showing interactive Jerry Springer.
There I'd draw the line. Being required to buy something is wrong. (Don't ask me about car insurance being mandatory, but not available from the State)
If government money is used to fund the service (like a library) then the government can set up guidelines that control policy. Of course this assumes that we (the voting public) control the government... (Heh. See above insurance knee-jerk.)
But 'computers used by adults' smells of Liz Dole sitting in my living room. Next thing we'll be required to do is wearing arm badges with our ethnic symbols on them.
What needs to be made clear to the people who think that they are in charge is that they are wrong. The sovereign entity in the United States is the Individual, not the State. Keep yer laws off my body, and keep yer policies out of my home.
I know everyone realizes this fact, but nobody seems to have mentioned it yet.
:), can be implemented with existing technology. Telephone or ISP style billing at a rate near that of electricity, with ReplayTV functionality, with possibly different price points for HDTV and old-style quality. Maybe we could get to the point of giving away TV sets with a three year subscription...
It costs a lot of money to do (national and local) broadcasting. This is where advertising revenue comes in. All the customer has to pay for is the TV set, and the electricity. If it were not for advertising, we would have 15 minutes per hour of pledge breaks, or worse yet, we'd have to pay a premium (over cable or satellite service fees) to the broadcasters.
A different system, where we are billed for time spent watching a particular station, might be better. First off, content might be better, since it would actually be 'our' money paying for what we spend our time watching, and we'd be more discriminating. Second, products might actually be cheaper and better, since they wouldn't carry the cost of advertising in the price tag, and would have to sell themselves on their actual merrits instead of cute or cleaver advertising (Bud, Weis, Errrr). Third, we'd spend less time watching TV, since it would cost money to do so, so we would do more valuable things, like reading, coding, and actually raising our kids. There's also the fringe benefit of not leaving the TV running when you leave the room.
The whole face of marketting would be different, since merit and value would be the predominant sales point, instead of image...
But that's not the system that is in place. It's not the system that has been shown to work well for those who are in control of it and who benefit by it.
My SYSTEM (tm)
I sure hope AOL Time Warner doesn't read this post before I file for a patent... [sigh]
Wow, so we'll have to actually read the source code for the evening news to be sure of it. Not only of it's accuracy or lack of spin, but also it's reality. Interesting.
/.) about what was happening during the WTO 'riots'. I have a much better understanding that I would have from the evening news.
Well, maybe the proliferation of internet access and connected wireless devices will be good in this resepect as well. We'll be able to take advantage of omnipresence, and draw our own conclusions. For example,
It was priceless to me to hear directly from people in Seattle (via
The military actions in Bosnia were heard of through the people there, on usenet. People who had bombs going off down the street were writing about it, and the world on-line had the option of knowing things first hand.
The dissemination of the truth, by private individuals, is not foolproof. There's bias and ignorance and assumption. But I suspect that it will/does work much like the opensource development process. You just can't tell a lie when there are other people, who know the truth, listening and able to speak. Just like you can't sneak a virus, or a back door, into a piece of open source code.
Goebbels was a brilliant propagandist. All that the reference implied to me was that this is a brilliant tool for propaganda.
Being able to distort reality towards any means is very impressive. For example, showing a local businesses logo on one of the boards of an international soccer match would make the company appear larger than life. Putting a M.A.D.D. logo in place of a Budweiser one would raise the cause to a higher status. Being able to elevate any agenda to a more prominent position than it holds, and thereby really placing it in the forefront of people's minds, is very Goebbels.
Goebbels was one of the greatest marketting geniuses of history. He managed to sell genocide to the masses, he justified it and made people believe it was the right thing. He made it into something people rooted for, or at least wouldn't speak out against. Not even Microsoft has been more successful. Goebbels did his job, right or wrong is not at issue. Much like Johnny Cochran did his job defending O.J., right or wrong was not at issue.
If anything, the Goebbels reference is a warning, and as such, it's the most effective reference that could be found.
A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as he could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
/. poll might be useful. :)
Although a
I've always found it interesting that the U.S. is the most Puritanical nation in the world. Sure, the Brits have some pretty stringent social norms, but their punks out 'punk' out punks any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I've always thought it a bit amusing that the people who founded the U.S. (historically and culturally if not politically)were Puritans, but the nation's most valued prize are the Freedoms Of Speach and Expression. Our (your, whatever) forefathers left Europe to establish a place where they could be free to practice their religion, and be free to be intolerant of basal human functions.
Americans are down-right freaky about personal hygiene for example. No where in Europe are people so obsessed with cleanliness. Sure, a bidet is common, but people frequently do not bother to shower everyday. Here, people skip showers, but won't ever admit it. Deodorants and shaved armpits on European women?? Nah!
So we come back to the most basal of human factors, sex. Americans are prudish, easily embarassed and completely unskilled in sex, romance and flirtation. How many of you had parents who would spell out S E X, rather than say the word in front of you? But everyone gets giddy and titilated by the concept of sex. If this wasn't so, day-time soaps would not be 50% love scenes, and Rikki Lake would be selling jeans at Lane Bryant. Oooh!! Sex. Sex! SEX!!! Big freaking whoop.
Personally, I think that this overfixation with sexual topics comes from not having any 'native' cultural artifacts depicting the human form. No Venus de Milo, no Statue of Adonis. No Greek urns or Italian frescoes. No Bolero.
In Europe, and Asia for that matter, sex is part of the culture, whereas here it's percieved as dirty. It is outside of the normal, it's secret and hidden and taboo. Parents don't have sex, and kids don't have the necessary equipment. This feeds much into the whole idea of molestation. "Private parts", good thouch vs bad touch... By keeping kids in the dark about sex, their American parents make them ill-equiped to talk about, confront, refuse or even identify inappropriate behavior. They are made ignorant and so vulnerable, by parents who try to 'spare them' from the 'dirty' "S" word. Why do you think they jump in the sack at 13?? Curious of the forbidden fruit, simple as that. Same dynamic with alcohol.
Through cultural deprivation of natural instincts, Americans set themselves up to a higher than global rate of perversion. Sort of a binge and purge, denial and gluttony system. Sexual denial leads to frustration, and this frustration manifests itself in a variety of ways...
Road rage. If everyone was a little less frustrated, it wouldn't happen as much. Sure there's other causes too, but maybe those stressors wouldn't be as stressful either.
Office interactions between genders shouldn't cause a person to worry about sexual harassment. You're just working with another person. Their gender matters not, and if it does then maybe you're too pent up.
Columbine. A kid with hormones running at full speed, but forced to not act, talk or even think in terms of sex... Douse that fire with gas, go ahead.
Seems that my arguments suggest that the lack of sex, or the ability to even acknowledge it as an integral part of life, results in violent behavior. What is it that is glorified in the US? What is in every movie there is?
Violence is considered an acceptable outlet for human energy, in place of sexuality, here in the US. From playing cowboys and indians in our early youth, to watching the Cowboys and the Indians duke it out on the tube, to seeing John Wayne and Clint Eastwood blasting away Running Bear. These are American heroes. Not Don Juan, not Cassanova. Not even the faithful husband. A 60% divorce rate? Why? Unfulfilment. Why? DON'T KNOW HOW.
Me, I blame Canada.