I can ASSURE you that there isn't a large number of people on Linux switching to Internet Explorer.
Thanks for a solid burst of rationality. Just today I was wondering what did the industry brainwash us into believing about 'platforms'? And 'compatability' and 'market share' and 'industry standard'? There's the famous (?) story told by Nelson Mandela, who upon his release from prison was sitting on a plane to leave RSA. When he saw that the pilot was black, he found himself thinking "God help us, a monkey is flying the plane" (or words to that effect). The racist meme had gotten into even his brain.
I overheard a woman in a store today, walking past the iMacs, saying "everybody's telling me to stick to PCs...." It's like this automatic belief about the 2% Death has really infected our culture. It's like there's something wrong with you if you don't own MS Office, or AutoCad, or Explorer.
It's one thing that 50% of desktops are Win98 or whatever, but what's gotten into people when they turn themselves into walking adverts for the products they own? You don't just buy it, you believe in it... you preach it and send to Hell and Damnation anyone using a different product.
So instead of welcoming diversity (How many species do you want to exterminate today?), we're laughing at these "weak, misguided fools who don't know whats good for them". No, don't be a fool, join the majority, the strong and wholesome (read: 'compatible', 'industry standard', 'works best with', 'market share', 'certified'...) so called 'Leaders'.
Are we just instruments of corporate marketing machines? How many of your opinions (both for and against) Windows, Macs, Be, Linux, Sun etc etc. were put there by the corporations?
We can all find fault with anything. It's too big, it's too small, its too slow, too fast, too bright, too dim, too common, too rare etc. And I think that the parent post was highlighting the "netscape is dead" attitude (I personally downloaded it... it runs... it renders pages... it has developers... therefore it is not dead) which people are swallowing. So we can all find a million "faults" with NS6 that "clearly" show it's inferior. What bias! What utter blindness! What opinionated crap! We've been 'educated' to believe it's dead, and therefore proceed to kill it.
This end result (some response) depends on the mental faculties of your audience (generally low). That line of reasoning won't work with most Americans, as they are, well, slow.
Ah, you've got it, but in reverse. If I may quote a little more from texts on NLP*
If you are a human being, you will have been in a situation where you said something you thought was clear, only to be amazed at the response. An innocent remark is taken personally or a well meant offer of help refused with a reply like "Don't interfere!".... This happens in reverse as well, when what you understood was not what the other person meant.
We cannot help making meaning of what we see, hear and feel... [and]... misunderstanding is the price we pay for being able to convey or infer so many subtle shades of meaning.... [but]... How do we know when we have actually succeeded?
A sender cannot decide what the signal will actually mean to the other person, only what they would like it to mean... - you are always succeeding in communicating something. It just may not be what you intended. The responses you get will give you valuable pointers about what to do next. They are your teachers.
So yes, you are dead right pointing out that the audience is going to understand based on their mental faculties, culture, individual traits etc. etc.
So NLP asks, what are the consequences of acting as if the meaning of any communication is the response you get?
Say, for example, that I want my partner to "feel loved", so I buy her flowers, but when I give them to her, she just says blankly "No thanks, I've nowhere to put them". Well, I could either get offended, or I could ask myself, "Well, to her, right now, 'flowers' does not mean 'I love you', so I wonder what does?", and maybe I realise, "Of course, she's only just moved into her new flat and everything is still in boxes... she has nowhere to put them, and I didn't think of that. Maybe she would prefer to be taken out to dinner instead..." So I offer to take her out, and she responds with a big hug and a kiss, saying "I'm so glad, I was dreading eating just a tin of beans tonight as I haven't got the cooker installed yet..."
* Neuro-Linguistic-Programming
Re:SICK OF IT! Giving up moderator points to say i
on
BSD to Leapfrog Linux?
·
· Score: 1
I'm sick of evangelists who Know the One True Path to Enlightenment...
Congratulations, Sir. You and post #3 beat the Editors to the act of reading the article. I do believe "Correction +1" should be a moderation option. It seems to be used/needed so often on/.
That 900 MHz is for the radio band, not the processor speed.
I like how actually reading the article is considered "Insightful";-)
Re:GM food is not a good idea yet
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 2
Somehow, nature forgave us for introducing things like horses to North America and tobacco to Europe, even though these things were -clearly- never intended to happen through any 'natural' means.
Like Nature is now forgiving us for feeding animal products to sheep by gifting us with BSE? There are examples either way. But what I'd like to add to the discussion of "luddite crackpots, weepy Sally-Fieldsesque mothers and pseudo-scientists stoping us" is that we need to separate the argument into one argument about Science and another one about Morals.
The philosopher Ken Wilber has put forward the idea of three major knowledge spheres, namely Art, Morals and Science. They correspond to The Beautiful, The Good, and The True. And they refer to I, We and It respectively. So Science is a study of "Its" (objective Truth), Art the study of the "I" (subjective Beauty), and Morals the study of "We" (intersubjective Good).
One of Wilbers' key points (if I'm representing his ideas right), is that none of these areas can be "reduced" to any of the others. For example, when a person feels hate, certain chemicals flood their brain. When they feel love, a different set of chemicals are released. Scietifically we can measure the chemicals, but science cannot tell us that one chemical is "better" than another chemical. Objectively Its are all just "stuff". But intersubjectively, We can agree that love is better than hate. And We can develop social systems that promote the Good.
So the luddite-crackpots are not really "anti-science" (although they may misguidedly aim their action in that direction). It's not a scientific problem. Its a problem of Values, social systems and social needs. Is it Better to develop new technologies, with their risks and benefits for our world, or to try to solve these problems of famine with other means?
I hear scientists in the media talk about the need for their work -- ie. famine etc. but they seldom talk about the possible abuses of their technology. I think perhaps they are getting Science and Morals mixed up also. The point of splitting Science, Morals and Art is to allow each to proceed unencumbered by the others. Science can say what can be done. Morals say whether it should be done.
GM food is indeed quite ready now.
Scientifically, GM food is indeed ready. We literally have the scientific technology. What we haven't worked out is whether we Morally, intersubjectively, socially, can make good use of it. Remember that it's the scientists themselves who say that their work is about finding Better ways to feed the world.
So the debate is a Moral-social-intersubjective one: is this technology really the way to feed the world, or is the problem not about technology at all, but rather social systems? And if it is about social systems, are not both the scientists and the anti-scientists missing the point?
I read about "daily cycles" of sleep, and being someone who habitually feels crap in the morning, decided to try it. I found it seems to work.
Basically, the body goes into a sleep mode about 10pm. This mode lasts until about 2am. During this period, the body is most relaxed and quiet. After it starts waking up, sleep is more shallow.
I've usually liked staying up late to do mental stuff/work, because I'd feel more focussed and relaxed, esp. around 1am, but would feel awful in the morning. I see now that the 'late-night-focus' was because my body was in 'deep-relaxation' mode, ie. the time when it was most adapted for deep-sleep. By morning, I'd not only missed the deepest relaxation sleep period, but would still be in bed when the body was passing from light-awake (2am-6am) to medium-awake (6am to 10am). So I'd be trying to wake up at 7 -- a few hours after my body's most sharply-awake period had already passed.
I've started experimented with going to bed at 10, and found I wake up naturally and very refreshed and clear at 4.30-5am (much more refreshed than I do at 6.30).
So instead of cramming a few late night work hours, there's the alternative of taking an early night and working from 5-7am, straight after having had the deepest sleep possible.
Anyway, I must sound really "sad" advocating 10pm bed time... and for many it's just not possible, but for those who are interested, see Chopra.
PS. I once stayed up 56 hours for work... at least I think it was work... can I remember?
Your ungrammatical response to my accurate and insightful comment has opened my eyes ! I renounce my evil trolling ways and declare my allegiance to the Church of Bongo. Persuant to Church teachings, I will immediately start anally raping barnyard animals.
As your new God, and in accordance with The Teaching, I hereby instruct you to go out and eliminate irritating famous people. Also don't forget to keep trolling. Trolling is Good, and although not appreciated by the evil "politically-correct" blind Hethen of this world, Trolling will bring you much power and wealth in a future incarnation.
...you feel that someone else using closed-source software erodes your rights. But that not true.
I dropped into this thread halfway, so maybe I'm missing the context. I'm not in the closed-source-is-evil thing.
You talk about basic rights, like software was one of them.
(Do you mean me, or the person I replied to?) I don't mean that "I have a right to every line of code on the planet". I agree with you that people are commiting themselves by agreeing to the Agreement.
I read a report of a study in a pyschology class once that illustrated this effect in the form of an experiement. A group of people...
Wow. That's really interesting. Have you seen this week's New Scientist's "Look Closely" feature? Also an "unsettling" psychology experiment. So yes, there's the network effect.
I guess you've put it more clearly than me. Yes, people are willingly entering the agreement. And the network effect makes it more likely that others will enter into similar agreements. And that's just my point (which is your point). If enough people think it's "ok" to lease software, then that's what most of us will be stuck with. Like we're stuck with the car. I can choose to not own one, but I'm pretty hard pressed to choose not to be at the effect of the environmental consequences -- ok ok offtopic already:-)
And quit complaining that other peoples acceptance of the product takes away your rights. It doesnt.
Ok, it doesn't take away my rights. You are being strict about this, and I can't disagree. What other people accept merely "shapes my environment" -- which is a diffrent sort of argument (ie. one about 'influences' rather than 'causes'). I was off the mark using the word "rights".
So unless they make a drastic change, they will never control 99%, or even 90%, of the internet and software markets.
So if people use it, and like it, great for MS, and great for the people. If no one likes it, or people see that alternatives exist, then those alternatives will be used. Its a rather simple thing, the way I see it.
What I said about 'lock-in-power' is a more localised process than what you're saying. So I have to agree with both of us... that a. there may be some people 'forced' into MS dependence, and b. that in the bigger picture, which you are stating (if I understand you), is that, as one MS lawyer put it, "the internet is too big for anyone to control it".
And I definetly agree with the bigger picture view. If anything, culturally (what little I've read on the subject), we are moving away from "Fordism" (see The Condition of PostModernity) where a single standard way is deemed best and dominates, to a more "pluralistic" acceptance of many points of view, and many different needs, and an honoring and integrating of these differences.
Which in the IT world translates nicely to Linus's quip about wanting people to go into a shop and choose an OS (be it Windows, Linux, Mac etc.)
Sorry about the long winded speel, but I'm basically saying that not only are you right, but the way things are going, you're going to get more right:-)
MS enforcing their licensing agreements will only help open source. Finally someone who see's what I am saying.
Yes. If I can suggest one of my pet-theory-observations about people, it's that 'we' don't take our agreements seriously.
I mean, I don't see the average consumer asking to even see the agreement before they buy the software. I guess they think, "it's just some agreement thing, it doesn't concern me, I'm no crook".
They don't stop to ask how the "agreement" violates their basic rights. Or how, by purchasing, and therefore approving of the product, they are probably eroding the rights of others, who will be more inclined to buy said software, due to the network effect.
So why, do you think, so many people are angry. Why? Because a lot of people on Slashdot these days tend to be want everything free. And if they can get something they want for free, they steal it.
Well, yes, and there's also the basic anti-MS sentiment. I for one wasn't anti-MS until it seemed like "Windows-Absolutely-Friggin-Everywhere" was looking likely to happen, including turning the net into MSN.
Perhaps people worry that a subscription system will give MS even more power. At the moment not everybody upgrades. Perhaps in some future subscription model, we'll be accepting "upgrades" (as we've already paid for them) regularly, including all the new lock-in "features" the clever MS boys can think of.
"Situational ethics" are logically self-refuting and simultaneously ultimately valueless. Certainly Kantian/religious legalistic ethics are ridiculous as well, but choice is not merely between those two paradigms; value hierarchies avoid the nilihism of situaltional ethics and the silly pedantry of legalism.
That's a mean compact statement. Can you expand on what "value hierarchies" are?
Right. The "average slashdotter" is a fourteen year old boy who's embarrassed to take a shower after gym class, and who uses Linux and DeCSS soley to rebel against the establishment (i.e. against all of the jocks and cool daddies who are stronger and get better grades, and who won over the girl he has a crush on).
So what? A person can be intellectually more developed, but emotionally lacking. Also vice-versae is possible. Being shy doesn't make you dumb, any more than developing your muscles makes you more compassionate. Ideally all aspects of a person would be developed, but our culture doesn't seem to succeed at that.
A slashdotter may indeed be right about an issue... it's just a shame that nobody is listening.
It goes back to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It's just one of those things you don't do. I think it's based on 'You can say anything you want, as long as it doesn't cause anyone else harm'. Now, whether the DeCSS software caused anyone harm is the point:)
That's a really interesting point. And while that begs a lot of thought, I see it also raises the issue of 'harm' --- we don't compensate companies that were 'harmed' by the competition-with-better-products. We don't inprison people who spread information about the addictive effects of nicotine, thus 'harming' cigarette companies (or do we?)
But the DeCSS case seems to my amateur eye to be not so much about freedom of speech, as of freedom of research. The 'law' is forbidding me from investigating, in my own private study, a piece of equipment that I own. It's anti-speech in the sence that I can't publish my findings --- and in the sence I can't investigate... it's anti-science. Hey, someone just discovered that the Earth isn't the center of the universe.... and We, the Church, can't allow that, so lets throw the man in jail.
The 'yell-FIRE-false-alarm' scenario is about one individual harming other individuals. But DeCSS is about an individual 'harming' corporations (musicians are 'affected', but the court case is the corporation vs. an individual). This is similar to The Church vs. Copernicus, and we know who had the power there. Copernicus was simply not allowed to say what he had observed.
Now let me play Devil's Advocate with myself, and ask "What if an individual 'observed' my bank account, or opened my mail (snail/email whatever)" Well, I wouldn't like it. It's like I don't like it when the papers print telephoto pictures of 'the stars' sunbathing by their private pools. I believe in the right to privacy. The state, or corporation, should not be allowed to interfere in my privacy.
So one question is, how do we reconcile the right to science and investigation with the right to privacy? Certainly the truth can be used to harm, or it can be used to help, but either way, should we not be free to determine the truth 'independently' (ie. without torture or theft)?
I suspect this has more to do with the people running the system that it does with the quality of the coding of the laws themselves. But that's just my amateur ramblings.
If the case is appealed to the Supreme Court, Kaplan confidently predicts his decision will be upheld: "The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected absolutist views of the First Amendment," he said.
absolutismn. the acceptance of or belief in absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or theological matters. absolutistn. & adj.
So you Americans have rights, but only 95% of the time. And it is not in your rights to decide which 5% of the time you don't have rights.
IOW, the powers-that-be reserve the right to screw you, every so often.
Sorry, kiddo, but tell me that you'll walk over W3C standards only after you've graduated and you have a family to support.
Well, I'm not a student, I don't have kids (can anyone say "population problem?"), and am married. And there are plenty of ways of making money. I'm not a professional web developer. So you are in your rights, if you want, to tell me to STFU. But my point still stands... business is just business. That's why we need universities, consumer rights campaigns, and other institutions that try to uphold standards other than the fast buck. Maybe W3C is a crap organisation (I don't know). And being a family man you probably want to get home to your family rather than spend your evenings religiously reciting W3C commandments. (I hope you don't work for one of these companies that thinks "working late" is normal and expected.) So I appreciate that you are coming from the "real world" perspective. I don't mean to completely negate that perspective.
And as I am not standing in your shoes, you are right, I cannot claim that I would do it differently. My point is just to please be reminded that there are other perspectives, and while the W3C is irrelevant to your perspective, it is not to other views.
The idea of interoperablility and openness for the purpose of accomodating and including the different needs of different users is not without social value. That's real value, not just some abstract notion of "value". Maybe the W3C isn't the way to achieve this, but my opinion is that picking the 80% market share (whatever that means) browser implementation as the "standard" isn't the way either. Business may not be able to steer this (their focus is too narrow), and you report that you can't steer this (the personal cost is too high). But standards bodies might be able to make a contribution.
That's the kind of attitude that's destroying the web. What was really good about the web was that it was totally independent of platform and application. That's what made it take off.
You're a student, aren't you...?
The business viewpoint has a very very narrow focus. It concerns itself only with profit. And while there is nothing wrong with profit, there is something wrong with activities that have damaging side-effects. At least while a person is still a student they have the luxury of thinking about values before the employer gets them by the balls. After that it takes a lot of will power, and most people don't have it.
If Microsoft is getting their tools in the hands of the programmers of the future, what can we do to achieve the same?
Depends on the age of the 'young people'. Probably depends on lots of things, but age determines whether they are more influenced by peers or school. If they want to be rebels, then having MS as the authority figure may be counter productive for MS.
Wouldn't it be much better if kids could take a look at development on several different platforms so that they can better use the technology when they are professionals rather than settling on "what they know"?
Yep. But you're really asking two questions: "Is it better to have more experience?" and
"will they get stuck in whatever they learnt first?"
One of the cool things about reading/. is that a non programmer like myself can hear lots of different POV based on all the different experiences that IT people have had. Before I read/. I had never heard of lots of stuff that was never mentioned in Byte (printed).
As for whether people will get stuck with whatever they are told first, that depends on whether they are Christians or not... er... I mean, it depends on whether they are open-minded-rational-truth-seekers or pre-rational-insecure-believers. If you are interested in understanding and quality, then you'll question what you are told anyway, unless 'thinking' is not on the curriculum. (Perhaps this is what Bertrand Russell meant about people being made stupid by education).
It's like, it depends on the quality of the education, "make a list of the pros and cons of this tool" vs. "solution providers are always called Microsoft", and it depends on the the quality of recruitment in the IT industry, "HR checklist" vs. "qualified peer review".
The tone of the question is, I feel, along the lines of "think of the innocent children/why don't we indoctrinate them too?", but I'm suggesting it's not so easy, because by the time they get to school age they have already aquired so much cultural baggage anyway.... kinda offtopic, yeah, but I feel the question just reflects some sad aspects of our system.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people have lost sight of what the Olympics are supposed to be. ... a way to bring nations together without war.
That role has been taken over by MacDonalds.
I'm hoping to get ***FIRST CALL*** in....
I can ASSURE you that there isn't a large number of people on Linux switching to Internet Explorer.
Thanks for a solid burst of rationality. Just today I was wondering what did the industry brainwash us into believing about 'platforms'? And 'compatability' and 'market share' and 'industry standard'? There's the famous (?) story told by Nelson Mandela, who upon his release from prison was sitting on a plane to leave RSA. When he saw that the pilot was black, he found himself thinking "God help us, a monkey is flying the plane" (or words to that effect). The racist meme had gotten into even his brain.
I overheard a woman in a store today, walking past the iMacs, saying "everybody's telling me to stick to PCs...." It's like this automatic belief about the 2% Death has really infected our culture. It's like there's something wrong with you if you don't own MS Office, or AutoCad, or Explorer.
It's one thing that 50% of desktops are Win98 or whatever, but what's gotten into people when they turn themselves into walking adverts for the products they own? You don't just buy it, you believe in it... you preach it and send to Hell and Damnation anyone using a different product.
So instead of welcoming diversity (How many species do you want to exterminate today?), we're laughing at these "weak, misguided fools who don't know whats good for them". No, don't be a fool, join the majority, the strong and wholesome (read: 'compatible', 'industry standard', 'works best with', 'market share', 'certified'...) so called 'Leaders'.
Are we just instruments of corporate marketing machines? How many of your opinions (both for and against) Windows, Macs, Be, Linux, Sun etc etc. were put there by the corporations?
We can all find fault with anything. It's too big, it's too small, its too slow, too fast, too bright, too dim, too common, too rare etc. And I think that the parent post was highlighting the "netscape is dead" attitude (I personally downloaded it... it runs... it renders pages... it has developers... therefore it is not dead) which people are swallowing. So we can all find a million "faults" with NS6 that "clearly" show it's inferior. What bias! What utter blindness! What opinionated crap! We've been 'educated' to believe it's dead, and therefore proceed to kill it.
This end result (some response) depends on the mental faculties of your audience (generally low). That line of reasoning won't work with most Americans, as they are, well, slow.
Ah, you've got it, but in reverse. If I may quote a little more from texts on NLP*
So yes, you are dead right pointing out that the audience is going to understand based on their mental faculties, culture, individual traits etc. etc.
So NLP asks, what are the consequences of acting as if the meaning of any communication is the response you get?
Say, for example, that I want my partner to "feel loved", so I buy her flowers, but when I give them to her, she just says blankly "No thanks, I've nowhere to put them". Well, I could either get offended, or I could ask myself, "Well, to her, right now, 'flowers' does not mean 'I love you', so I wonder what does?", and maybe I realise, "Of course, she's only just moved into her new flat and everything is still in boxes... she has nowhere to put them, and I didn't think of that. Maybe she would prefer to be taken out to dinner instead..." So I offer to take her out, and she responds with a big hug and a kiss, saying "I'm so glad, I was dreading eating just a tin of beans tonight as I haven't got the cooker installed yet..."
* Neuro-Linguistic-Programming
I'm sick of evangelists who Know the One True Path to Enlightenment...
If You Meet The Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!
28. The most important things, each man must do for himself.
42. What do you know... for sure... anyway?
it has a 100 kb/sec 900 Mhz radio
Congratulations, Sir. /.
You and post #3 beat the Editors to the act of reading the article. I do believe "Correction +1" should be a moderation option. It seems to be used/needed so often on
That 900 MHz is for the radio band, not the processor speed.
I like how actually reading the article is considered "Insightful" ;-)
Somehow, nature forgave us for introducing things like horses to North America and tobacco to Europe, even though these things were -clearly- never intended to happen through any 'natural' means.
Like Nature is now forgiving us for feeding animal products to sheep by gifting us with BSE? There are examples either way. But what I'd like to add to the discussion of "luddite crackpots, weepy Sally-Fieldsesque mothers and pseudo-scientists stoping us" is that we need to separate the argument into one argument about Science and another one about Morals.
The philosopher Ken Wilber has put forward the idea of three major knowledge spheres, namely Art, Morals and Science. They correspond to The Beautiful, The Good, and The True. And they refer to I, We and It respectively. So Science is a study of "Its" (objective Truth), Art the study of the "I" (subjective Beauty), and Morals the study of "We" (intersubjective Good).
One of Wilbers' key points (if I'm representing his ideas right), is that none of these areas can be "reduced" to any of the others. For example, when a person feels hate, certain chemicals flood their brain. When they feel love, a different set of chemicals are released. Scietifically we can measure the chemicals, but science cannot tell us that one chemical is "better" than another chemical. Objectively Its are all just "stuff". But intersubjectively, We can agree that love is better than hate. And We can develop social systems that promote the Good.
So the luddite-crackpots are not really "anti-science" (although they may misguidedly aim their action in that direction). It's not a scientific problem. Its a problem of Values, social systems and social needs. Is it Better to develop new technologies, with their risks and benefits for our world, or to try to solve these problems of famine with other means?
I hear scientists in the media talk about the need for their work -- ie. famine etc. but they seldom talk about the possible abuses of their technology. I think perhaps they are getting Science and Morals mixed up also. The point of splitting Science, Morals and Art is to allow each to proceed unencumbered by the others. Science can say what can be done. Morals say whether it should be done.
GM food is indeed quite ready now.
Scientifically, GM food is indeed ready. We literally have the scientific technology. What we haven't worked out is whether we Morally, intersubjectively, socially, can make good use of it. Remember that it's the scientists themselves who say that their work is about finding Better ways to feed the world.
So the debate is a Moral-social-intersubjective one: is this technology really the way to feed the world, or is the problem not about technology at all, but rather social systems? And if it is about social systems, are not both the scientists and the anti-scientists missing the point?
I read about "daily cycles" of sleep, and being someone who habitually feels crap in the morning, decided to try it. I found it seems to work.
Basically, the body goes into a sleep mode about 10pm. This mode lasts until about 2am. During this period, the body is most relaxed and quiet. After it starts waking up, sleep is more shallow.
I've usually liked staying up late to do mental stuff/work, because I'd feel more focussed and relaxed, esp. around 1am, but would feel awful in the morning. I see now that the 'late-night-focus' was because my body was in 'deep-relaxation' mode, ie. the time when it was most adapted for deep-sleep. By morning, I'd not only missed the deepest relaxation sleep period, but would still be in bed when the body was passing from light-awake (2am-6am) to medium-awake (6am to 10am). So I'd be trying to wake up at 7 -- a few hours after my body's most sharply-awake period had already passed.
I've started experimented with going to bed at 10, and found I wake up naturally and very refreshed and clear at 4.30-5am (much more refreshed than I do at 6.30).
So instead of cramming a few late night work hours, there's the alternative of taking an early night and working from 5-7am, straight after having had the deepest sleep possible.
Anyway, I must sound really "sad" advocating 10pm bed time... and for many it's just not possible, but for those who are interested, see Chopra.
PS. I once stayed up 56 hours for work... at least I think it was work... can I remember?
Your ungrammatical response to my accurate and insightful comment has opened my eyes ! I renounce my evil trolling ways and declare my allegiance to the Church of Bongo. Persuant to Church teachings, I will immediately start anally raping barnyard animals.
As your new God, and in accordance with The Teaching, I hereby instruct you to go out and eliminate irritating famous people. Also don't forget to keep trolling. Trolling is Good, and although not appreciated by the evil "politically-correct" blind Hethen of this world, Trolling will bring you much power and wealth in a future incarnation.
Your sig is stupid and wrong, dickhead.
Your are stupid and wrong, AC dickhead.
Since then, I've come to determine the only countries that are actually...
Hey, what about Tibet? ... oh, wait, they got invaded.
Hey, so just send them 23% of a copy of your source :-P
I dropped into this thread halfway, so maybe I'm missing the context. I'm not in the closed-source-is-evil thing.
You talk about basic rights, like software was one of them.
(Do you mean me, or the person I replied to?) I don't mean that "I have a right to every line of code on the planet". I agree with you that people are commiting themselves by agreeing to the Agreement.
I read a report of a study in a pyschology class once that illustrated this effect in the form of an experiement. A group of people...
Wow. That's really interesting. Have you seen this week's New Scientist's "Look Closely" feature? Also an "unsettling" psychology experiment. So yes, there's the network effect.
I guess you've put it more clearly than me. Yes, people are willingly entering the agreement. And the network effect makes it more likely that others will enter into similar agreements. And that's just my point (which is your point). If enough people think it's "ok" to lease software, then that's what most of us will be stuck with. Like we're stuck with the car. I can choose to not own one, but I'm pretty hard pressed to choose not to be at the effect of the environmental consequences -- ok ok offtopic already :-)
And quit complaining that other peoples acceptance of the product takes away your rights. It doesnt.
Ok, it doesn't take away my rights. You are being strict about this, and I can't disagree. What other people accept merely "shapes my environment" -- which is a diffrent sort of argument (ie. one about 'influences' rather than 'causes'). I was off the mark using the word "rights".
So unless they make a drastic change, they will never control 99%, or even 90%, of the internet and software markets.
So if people use it, and like it, great for MS, and great for the people. If no one likes it, or people see that alternatives exist, then those alternatives will be used. Its a rather simple thing, the way I see it.
What I said about 'lock-in-power' is a more localised process than what you're saying. So I have to agree with both of us... that a. there may be some people 'forced' into MS dependence, and b. that in the bigger picture, which you are stating (if I understand you), is that, as one MS lawyer put it, "the internet is too big for anyone to control it".
And I definetly agree with the bigger picture view. If anything, culturally (what little I've read on the subject), we are moving away from "Fordism" (see The Condition of PostModernity) where a single standard way is deemed best and dominates, to a more "pluralistic" acceptance of many points of view, and many different needs, and an honoring and integrating of these differences.
Which in the IT world translates nicely to Linus's quip about wanting people to go into a shop and choose an OS (be it Windows, Linux, Mac etc.)
Sorry about the long winded speel, but I'm basically saying that not only are you right, but the way things are going, you're going to get more right :-)
MS enforcing their licensing agreements will only help open source. Finally someone who see's what I am saying.
Yes. If I can suggest one of my pet-theory-observations about people, it's that 'we' don't take our agreements seriously.
I mean, I don't see the average consumer asking to even see the agreement before they buy the software. I guess they think, "it's just some agreement thing, it doesn't concern me, I'm no crook".
They don't stop to ask how the "agreement" violates their basic rights. Or how, by purchasing, and therefore approving of the product, they are probably eroding the rights of others, who will be more inclined to buy said software, due to the network effect.
So why, do you think, so many people are angry. Why? Because a lot of people on Slashdot these days tend to be want everything free. And if they can get something they want for free, they steal it.
Well, yes, and there's also the basic anti-MS sentiment. I for one wasn't anti-MS until it seemed like "Windows-Absolutely-Friggin-Everywhere" was looking likely to happen, including turning the net into MSN.
Perhaps people worry that a subscription system will give MS even more power. At the moment not everybody upgrades. Perhaps in some future subscription model, we'll be accepting "upgrades" (as we've already paid for them) regularly, including all the new lock-in "features" the clever MS boys can think of.
"Situational ethics" are logically self-refuting and simultaneously ultimately valueless. Certainly Kantian/religious legalistic ethics are ridiculous as well, but choice is not merely between those two paradigms; value hierarchies avoid the nilihism of situaltional ethics and the silly pedantry of legalism.
That's a mean compact statement. Can you expand on what "value hierarchies" are?
Right. The "average slashdotter" is a fourteen year old boy who's embarrassed to take a shower after gym class, and who uses Linux and DeCSS soley to rebel against the establishment (i.e. against all of the jocks and cool daddies who are stronger and get better grades, and who won over the girl he has a crush on).
So what? A person can be intellectually more developed, but emotionally lacking. Also vice-versae is possible. Being shy doesn't make you dumb, any more than developing your muscles makes you more compassionate. Ideally all aspects of a person would be developed, but our culture doesn't seem to succeed at that.
A slashdotter may indeed be right about an issue... it's just a shame that nobody is listening.
It goes back to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It's just one of those things you don't do. I think it's based on 'You can say anything you want, as long as it doesn't cause anyone else harm'. Now, whether the DeCSS software caused anyone harm is the point :)
That's a really interesting point. And while that begs a lot of thought, I see it also raises the issue of 'harm' --- we don't compensate companies that were 'harmed' by the competition-with-better-products. We don't inprison people who spread information about the addictive effects of nicotine, thus 'harming' cigarette companies (or do we?)
But the DeCSS case seems to my amateur eye to be not so much about freedom of speech, as of freedom of research. The 'law' is forbidding me from investigating, in my own private study, a piece of equipment that I own. It's anti-speech in the sence that I can't publish my findings --- and in the sence I can't investigate... it's anti-science. Hey, someone just discovered that the Earth isn't the center of the universe.... and We, the Church, can't allow that, so lets throw the man in jail.
The 'yell-FIRE-false-alarm' scenario is about one individual harming other individuals. But DeCSS is about an individual 'harming' corporations (musicians are 'affected', but the court case is the corporation vs. an individual). This is similar to The Church vs. Copernicus, and we know who had the power there. Copernicus was simply not allowed to say what he had observed.
Now let me play Devil's Advocate with myself, and ask "What if an individual 'observed' my bank account, or opened my mail (snail/email whatever)" Well, I wouldn't like it. It's like I don't like it when the papers print telephoto pictures of 'the stars' sunbathing by their private pools. I believe in the right to privacy. The state, or corporation, should not be allowed to interfere in my privacy.
So one question is, how do we reconcile the right to science and investigation with the right to privacy? Certainly the truth can be used to harm, or it can be used to help, but either way, should we not be free to determine the truth 'independently' (ie. without torture or theft)?
I suspect this has more to do with the people running the system that it does with the quality of the coding of the laws themselves. But that's just my amateur ramblings.
If the case is appealed to the Supreme Court, Kaplan confidently predicts his decision will be upheld: "The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected absolutist views of the First Amendment," he said.
absolutism n. the acceptance of or belief in absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or theological matters. absolutist n. & adj.
So you Americans have rights, but only 95% of the time. And it is not in your rights to decide which 5% of the time you don't have rights.
IOW, the powers-that-be reserve the right to screw you, every so often.
Sorry, kiddo, but tell me that you'll walk over W3C standards only after you've graduated and you have a family to support.
Well, I'm not a student, I don't have kids (can anyone say "population problem?"), and am married. And there are plenty of ways of making money. I'm not a professional web developer. So you are in your rights, if you want, to tell me to STFU. But my point still stands... business is just business. That's why we need universities, consumer rights campaigns, and other institutions that try to uphold standards other than the fast buck. Maybe W3C is a crap organisation (I don't know). And being a family man you probably want to get home to your family rather than spend your evenings religiously reciting W3C commandments. (I hope you don't work for one of these companies that thinks "working late" is normal and expected.) So I appreciate that you are coming from the "real world" perspective. I don't mean to completely negate that perspective.
And as I am not standing in your shoes, you are right, I cannot claim that I would do it differently. My point is just to please be reminded that there are other perspectives, and while the W3C is irrelevant to your perspective, it is not to other views.
The idea of interoperablility and openness for the purpose of accomodating and including the different needs of different users is not without social value. That's real value, not just some abstract notion of "value". Maybe the W3C isn't the way to achieve this, but my opinion is that picking the 80% market share (whatever that means) browser implementation as the "standard" isn't the way either. Business may not be able to steer this (their focus is too narrow), and you report that you can't steer this (the personal cost is too high). But standards bodies might be able to make a contribution.
That's the kind of attitude that's destroying the web. What was really good about the web was that it was totally independent of platform and application. That's what made it take off.
You're a student, aren't you...?
The business viewpoint has a very very narrow focus. It concerns itself only with profit. And while there is nothing wrong with profit, there is something wrong with activities that have damaging side-effects. At least while a person is still a student they have the luxury of thinking about values before the employer gets them by the balls. After that it takes a lot of will power, and most people don't have it.
The market has made the W3C irrelevant. Users and developers fo the Web don't care what the W3C. The W3C is just pissing up a rope at this point.
Narrowminded opinion.
If Microsoft is getting their tools in the hands of the programmers of the future, what can we do to achieve the same?
Depends on the age of the 'young people'. Probably depends on lots of things, but age determines whether they are more influenced by peers or school. If they want to be rebels, then having MS as the authority figure may be counter productive for MS.
Wouldn't it be much better if kids could take a look at development on several different platforms so that they can better use the technology when they are professionals rather than settling on "what they know"?
Yep. But you're really asking two questions:
"Is it better to have more experience?" and
"will they get stuck in whatever they learnt first?"
One of the cool things about reading /. is that a non programmer like myself can hear lots of different POV based on all the different experiences that IT people have had. Before I read /. I had never heard of lots of stuff that was never mentioned in Byte (printed).
As for whether people will get stuck with whatever they are told first, that depends on whether they are Christians or not... er... I mean, it depends on whether they are open-minded-rational-truth-seekers or pre-rational-insecure-believers. If you are interested in understanding and quality, then you'll question what you are told anyway, unless 'thinking' is not on the curriculum. (Perhaps this is what Bertrand Russell meant about people being made stupid by education).
It's like, it depends on the quality of the education, "make a list of the pros and cons of this tool" vs. "solution providers are always called Microsoft",
and it depends on the the quality of recruitment in the IT industry, "HR checklist" vs. "qualified peer review".
The tone of the question is, I feel, along the lines of "think of the innocent children/why don't we indoctrinate them too?", but I'm suggesting it's not so easy, because by the time they get to school age they have already aquired so much cultural baggage anyway.... kinda offtopic, yeah, but I feel the question just reflects some sad aspects of our system.