It seems to me that this is all part of the next wave of computing devices. The iPhone showed that portable computing device could be easy to use and fulfill a number of functions including cell phone, internet browser, applications platform and media player. It's not so much a smart phone as it is a computer. Google followed with Android. Nokia and RIM are now inspired to try to make their smartphone operating systems work the same way. They won't. They are going to have to adopt Android or develop new operating systems (Linux-based most likely) if they want to compete for the long term.
The next step (this new wave) is to use the operating system developed for iPhone type devices on larger form factors better suited for more general purpose computing. The rumored Apple tablet and what is being announced here are just that. The approach of trying to fit a full desktop operating system on crapped-down hardware that conforms to a common PC form factor yielded netbooks. If you are used to a full blown laptop netbooks are very unsatisfying. Yet the need for a less expensive, useful and durable device with excellent battery life remains. I think that is what these new devices are trying to address and it makes sense to me that they are more likely to be successful.
Microsoft, watch out. The growth in the computing market will be devices like these, not general purpose computers - desktops and laptops. These devices will be more reliant on browser based RIA apps (e.g. Javascript & HTML5) and web services than on native applications. General purpose PCs will still be around in large but stagnant numbers. If I'm making these more specialized devices, why would I pay for an operating system when I can get one for free? If the browser I put on my device meets all the requisite standards, you can no longer offer me the advantage of lot's of applications.
But Microsoft is not stupid. The new Zune HD shows me that at least they are thinking about this market and how to compete in it.
I don't suppose you understand the difference between a tax and a purchase price. Apple sells the phone and the ipod. It's not obligated to supply you with free or unfettered development tools. They are not obligated to supply you with any tools at all. If it chooses to supply you with tools then it can also choose what to charge and how it will work. You are free to go elsewhere for your tools or your phone. That's also true for Microsoft or any other company. They will do what is in their business interests and they will charge what they think will maximize the benefits to their shareholders. Microsoft is losing market share in the phone market and needs to do something to be more competitive. iPhone has a dominant position in the applications space so if Microsoft wants to compete, they have to get more applications for CE that will compelling for consumers.
Apple supports developers because they want applications that will appeal to consumers and help drive more iPhone sales. So they've set up a system that does that. Included in the $99 is an application distribution mechanism that gives you access to the world market.
Apple uses digital signing from the start in order to reduce the effects of malware through social engineering. They want their consumers to get used to the idea that all legitimate applications will be digitally signed so they can be traced to their source and, if they prove to be malicious or dangerous, easily identified and removed. Microsoft tried to retro-fit this to Windows a few years ago for similar reasons. Unfortunately the horses had already left the barn. PC users have not been conditioned to expect verifiable digital signatures on the apps they install so they end up installing all sorts of malware.
So you think it's "abuse" to have to digitally sign your applications or do you think that it's "abuse" for a vendor to help insure the products I buy aren't going to cause me harm? Are you stupid or criminal or both? No wonder you love Microsoft. They do so little to help protect their users!
Theoretically I suppose. It's also theoretically possible that Microsoft will refuse to sell you one or some or all of their products or support. Not likely in either case. In Apple's case they want a way of being able to trace back any problem (i.e. malware) applications to its source. Personally, I appreciate that. It's another reason for me to use their products.
So you need a digital certificate from Apple. Big deal. Once you get it ($99 developer fee - much cheaper than Visual Studio)
This is very different from what you've said in your original post up the thread:
How is it different? Once you get the certificate you are free to write apps and deploy them to your iPhone or iPod Touch. You don't need any further approvals or services from Apple to do this. If you don't want to pay anything then you can explore the jailbreak options.
I hope you have a good time fulfilling your fantasy of creating the first Zune "killer app".
If you can read, you might look at the post above where they guy is talking about developing in Visual Studio. (The iPhone IDE is free too.)
Frankly I don't care about the Zune or development for it and I don't pretend to know anything about it. I responded to the misinformation about iPhone development. Go buy your Zune and enjoy.
So you need a digital certificate from Apple. Big deal. Once you get it ($99 developer fee - much cheaper than Visual Studio) you can create apps and deploy them to your iPhone or iTouch. If you go enterprise you can distribute applications to the devices in your enterprise.
If you're having problems, maybe you should contact tech support or try another hobby/line of work.
I flattered that you think I'm a hipster. I don't think I even know any. I like and use Apple's products because they work well and well together. If you prefer Linux, Windows, Zunes or whatever, I'm fine with that.
You can develop iPhone/iTouch software and deploy it without any involvement by Apple. Just connect the computer with the application to your device. What you cannot do without using iTunes or your own (probably corporate) server is widely distribute your applications to others around the world.
I'm always amazed how ignorant non-Apple users are about Apple's products and how much disinformation they spew. If you really want to know what you can or cannot do with an Apple device or software, you should ask the people who know - experienced Apple users.
The purpose of any government policy should be to maximize freedom and autonomy of the individual. Capitalism is the economic manifestation of this principle. It is the idea that anyone may select their own destiny based on their abilities, effort, values, and the resources that are voluntarily given to them by others.
I disagree with you on this point. I don't think that the purpose of government is to maximize freedom and autonomy of individuals. Why would you need government at all then? Obviously I'm not a libertarian. I believe that we form governments to maximize our collective welfare.
Now I believe that in order to maximize our welfare we have to limit the power of others whether they be government officials, aristocrats, labor unions, business and property owners, or common bullies and thugs. So, I tend to see capitalism and market economies as being consistent with freedom and limitations on power, I don't see it as being particularly good at protecting us or insuring that we don't starve. Capitalism essentially harnesses our proclivity to sin (each of the "seven deadly sins" is someone's incentive) for productive uses. However, we have to remember that it works by appealing to our darker natures and as such we need to keep an eye on our most ardent capitalists because they have shown themselves to be both clever and highly motivated.
I agree with you that this does not have an "anti-American" motivation and I'm generally pretty sensitive to that sort of thing. To my mind it's that the EU has a different view of how monopolies should be regulated than the U.S. government does - at this time. I actually agree more with the EU position in the cases of Microsoft and Intel. (I do think the EU tends toward over-regulation instead of letting the markets work while the U.S. seems to be too laissez faire.)
I'm pro-capitalism and pro-market, but here in the U.S. we seem to have forgotten that the objectives of government economic policy should not be the perfect "efficiency" of markets. It should be the well being of it's population over the short, medium and long terms. Capitalism and free markets are a means to this end. They are not the end itself. Neither were mandated by God or advocated by any of the major prophets so why do some people act as if they were?
How can you get 3rd degree burns from a water-based liquid heated to only 180-190 degrees? Second degree yes, and it certainly would be painful, but I understand 3rd degree burns result in charred flesh. Also, the coffee would have cooled a bit while being transported to her and then much more once it was spilled.
I've had coffee at that temperature spilled on me (an entire cup) when I was a kid and I got blisters, not 3rd degree burns. In my case the coffee was made with boiling water that was poured directly into a cup. It spilled on me less than 30 seconds from being poured. I was only wearing a t-shirt on the area where it was spilled - my chest and stomach.
Can anyone explain how what is being claimed here is possible?
Just because you haven't heard of Micro Focus does not mean "noone" has. Micro Focus is very well know in every IT shop that has a mainframe. Yes, COBOL is still the mainstay language for applications in large enterprises. They've been predicting it's imminent death for most of the 30 years I've been in IT, but it's still around. Believe it or not, the also push OO COBOL. Yes, it's as bad and idea as it sounds.
The sad thing is that Borland practically invented the IDE. Microsoft hired away the developers during the 90's and was finally able to make Visual Studio a decent platform.
First of all how can free and open software with an open API be proprietary? In any case, Shuttleworth wasn't advocating making Linux in some way incompatible with the world. He just said that imitating Windows or relying on Windows application compatibility wasn't going to make Linux successful.
Linux is actually far more compatible with the rest of the world than some folks realize. The Linux API has become a standard of sorts. Even some commercial UNIX like AIX support it. By supporting the Linux API on AIX, IBM can run programs developed for Linux on their expensive, proprietary, albeit powerful, commercial UNIX systems. At many levels (below the UI) it's pretty easy to port between Linux and OSX. So there is nothing proprietary about Linux. None of that is the point.
Are the Windows or OSX UIs the best possible UIs?
Is it possible for an O/S to support application installation and maintenance better than Windows?
Is it possible for an O/S to make better use of hardware resources? Is there a better model for sharing components, resources, etc.? Are there better (more flexible, easier, more transparent, etc.) ways/tools for maintaining an O/S and the stuff that runs on it? Can an O/S be made much more secure than Windows - other than relying on its tiny market share? Can there be better "office" applications than MS Office - better as in you'd use it instead of Office if the price was the same (or free)?
I could ask a lot more questions, but clearly, there are a lot of areas where an O/S can out do Windows or OSX for that matter. Linux can't just be cheaper, it has to be better in ways that people value. That's how it will find its market. If all you can say about Linux or any other O/S is that it's "just like Windows" or "it runs all your Windows programs", then you are saying that you have nothing better than Windows.
I'm now wondering what bothers you the most at this point: the fact that I don't agree with your viewpoint, or the fact that religion is not my reason for disagreeing with you?:)
Neither. You haven't actually responded directly to what I was asking. That's fine because I don't believe you've really pondered much on how you've arrived at whatever sense of morality you may have.
You wrote "if enough people agree with it...". I was asking how you determined what the moral standard was so I assumed that you were answering that question. Your response says you were not.
Many of the arguments about what makes something moral has more to do with self-interest than morality. Obviously I want to prevent murder for the sake of myself and family. I don't want murders out there endangering us. I want to help fight disease so neither myself nor my family will fall victim to it. This is all self-interest. It's no different than intervening in one country committing crimes against humanity because it is next door while ignoring (or standing by) while worse crimes are committed in some country in Africa e.g. Kosovo and Rwanda. I'm not saying that this is your position, but I think we often delude ourselves into thinking we are good and moral when we are just acting in what we see to be our self-interest.
BTW, I gave credit for the golden rule to those others than just Christians. My term "religious nuts" was sarcasm since I see so much religion bashing around here. I'm perfectly fine with the vast majority of religious people. The few extremists are another matter, but I don't equate religion with extremism.
So you say that "if enough people agree with it, then it doesn't matter...". For centuries most people accepted slavery. Did that make it moral? It was a handful of "religious nut cases" starting in Britain that started in motion the end of slave trading in the west. At other times large majorities have favored imperialism, war and genocide. I suppose that made it moral. You are in favor of throwing Gays into prison I suppose. The fact is that societies have continuously redefined what is moral and what is not. My point was that if that's how morality is defined - by tribal, national or cultural consensus, then how can anyone be so certain about their own moral judgements - certain to the point where they condemn or those who do not share their views?
It's interesting that you ended up with what is also known as the "golden rule" as your principle test. It's a good rule. Someone named J. Christ is often credited as the author though he credited his "dad". Other religious nuts (aka prophets) have preached similar things. Oddly enough, these guys always seemed to belong to what at the time was a small minority.
My original post was intended to chide the author of the post I was responding to and the rest of the readers about the tendency to groupthink and to attempt preemptively discount contrary opinions by taking the stance that the author and the like-minded had a monopoly on truth and morality. When there is a disaster in the world, it isn't a given amongst mankind that we should all rush whatever assistance we can. Some cultures are a bit more fatalistic and see natural disasters differently. Some folks are more - well what I would call selfish though they would differ (inward looking?) - and others think that it's a waste of precious resources to react to disasters instead of preventing them. I don't think we should assume that holding these points of view necessarily makes someone less moral or immoral.
We don't really know the carrying capacity of the Earth, and at any rate allowing billions to die isn't a valid solution by any reasonable moral standard.
That's interesting. So your statement preemptively declares all opposing positions as being "unreasonable". You also assume that "valid" solutions must be moral as you define it and that we must have a solution.
Why is death by disease immoral? Why is not making extraordinary efforts to treat the diseases of others immoral? By who's standard other than yours?
If you are a religious person than I can understand your position. If you are not then I wonder how you arrived at it. I don't know where you are coming from here, but I do wonder about the large number of people in the West who renounce or ignore religious faith and yet still have this sense of moral certainty and who freely make moral judgement of one and all.
I'm not trying to pick on you personally, but/. is full of people who on one hand are quite certain in their moral judgements and yet mock religion and the religious. It's sort of a "mock religion" they seem to follow if you'll pardon the pun.
I've heard the 20 million estimate many times, but not the 100 million. That sounds exaggerated (like the supposed "150,000 missing children" in the U.S. each year - the math doesn't work and it includes child custody disputes, kids who go to a friends house without telling their caretakers and many other fairly harmless incidents. Do you have a real source? Wikipedia is not the most reliable source.
That's not to say that I think we are over reacting yet. I don't know, and the death rate among teens and young adults certainly is a cause for concern.
I don't know why you keep harping on this, but I'd think he'd be more concerned about the making entertainment out of military devices and activities - which is what most games do. Using an iPod as a portable computer during war doesn't lead to warlike tendencies. Does playing at warfare or murder (e.g. first person shooter games and all the games about war and combat)?
There's not many who truly love Gandhi & respect his teachings who see militarisation of an entertainment device as 'great'.
I don't see that as in consistent. I don't agree that Gandhi's approach works everywhere with everyone under all circumstances. His approach of passive resistance works best when confronting a nation of people who see themselves as civilized and decent so it worked against the British. Martin Luther King used Gandhi's approach in the U.S. and that worked well. If the Irish Catholics' resistance to Britain followed Gandhi instead of the IRA, the troubles would have ended sooner and more easily. If the Palestinians used Gandhi's approach against Israel instead of following the PLO there might now be one secular state where people of all denominations were equal.
I don't think Gandhi would have been successful against Hitler or Stalin or Mao. They would have killed him and moved on. There is a time for fighting.
I'm a Gandhi loving, walking and public transport (though a Prius would be O.K. if I had to drive), latte (no cream, please) sipping, Bush hating guy and I think this is great. I'm also an Army vet with an intel and law enforcement background. Did I mention that I'm also a big Obama supporter? Take your stereotypes and shove them where the sun don't shine (on your body).
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that this is all part of the next wave of computing devices. The iPhone showed that portable computing device could be easy to use and fulfill a number of functions including cell phone, internet browser, applications platform and media player. It's not so much a smart phone as it is a computer. Google followed with Android. Nokia and RIM are now inspired to try to make their smartphone operating systems work the same way. They won't. They are going to have to adopt Android or develop new operating systems (Linux-based most likely) if they want to compete for the long term.
The next step (this new wave) is to use the operating system developed for iPhone type devices on larger form factors better suited for more general purpose computing. The rumored Apple tablet and what is being announced here are just that. The approach of trying to fit a full desktop operating system on crapped-down hardware that conforms to a common PC form factor yielded netbooks. If you are used to a full blown laptop netbooks are very unsatisfying. Yet the need for a less expensive, useful and durable device with excellent battery life remains. I think that is what these new devices are trying to address and it makes sense to me that they are more likely to be successful.
Microsoft, watch out. The growth in the computing market will be devices like these, not general purpose computers - desktops and laptops. These devices will be more reliant on browser based RIA apps (e.g. Javascript & HTML5) and web services than on native applications. General purpose PCs will still be around in large but stagnant numbers. If I'm making these more specialized devices, why would I pay for an operating system when I can get one for free? If the browser I put on my device meets all the requisite standards, you can no longer offer me the advantage of lot's of applications.
But Microsoft is not stupid. The new Zune HD shows me that at least they are thinking about this market and how to compete in it.
I don't suppose you understand the difference between a tax and a purchase price. Apple sells the phone and the ipod. It's not obligated to supply you with free or unfettered development tools. They are not obligated to supply you with any tools at all. If it chooses to supply you with tools then it can also choose what to charge and how it will work. You are free to go elsewhere for your tools or your phone. That's also true for Microsoft or any other company. They will do what is in their business interests and they will charge what they think will maximize the benefits to their shareholders. Microsoft is losing market share in the phone market and needs to do something to be more competitive. iPhone has a dominant position in the applications space so if Microsoft wants to compete, they have to get more applications for CE that will compelling for consumers.
Apple supports developers because they want applications that will appeal to consumers and help drive more iPhone sales. So they've set up a system that does that. Included in the $99 is an application distribution mechanism that gives you access to the world market.
Apple uses digital signing from the start in order to reduce the effects of malware through social engineering. They want their consumers to get used to the idea that all legitimate applications will be digitally signed so they can be traced to their source and, if they prove to be malicious or dangerous, easily identified and removed. Microsoft tried to retro-fit this to Windows a few years ago for similar reasons. Unfortunately the horses had already left the barn. PC users have not been conditioned to expect verifiable digital signatures on the apps they install so they end up installing all sorts of malware.
So you think it's "abuse" to have to digitally sign your applications or do you think that it's "abuse" for a vendor to help insure the products I buy aren't going to cause me harm? Are you stupid or criminal or both? No wonder you love Microsoft. They do so little to help protect their users!
It's true, the iPhone and iPod Touch are much more widely available than Zune. Thanks for pointing that out. Very fair of you.
Theoretically I suppose. It's also theoretically possible that Microsoft will refuse to sell you one or some or all of their products or support. Not likely in either case. In Apple's case they want a way of being able to trace back any problem (i.e. malware) applications to its source. Personally, I appreciate that. It's another reason for me to use their products.
So you need a digital certificate from Apple. Big deal. Once you get it ($99 developer fee - much cheaper than Visual Studio)
This is very different from what you've said in your original post up the thread:
How is it different? Once you get the certificate you are free to write apps and deploy them to your iPhone or iPod Touch. You don't need any further approvals or services from Apple to do this. If you don't want to pay anything then you can explore the jailbreak options. I hope you have a good time fulfilling your fantasy of creating the first Zune "killer app".
If you can read, you might look at the post above where they guy is talking about developing in Visual Studio. (The iPhone IDE is free too.) Frankly I don't care about the Zune or development for it and I don't pretend to know anything about it. I responded to the misinformation about iPhone development. Go buy your Zune and enjoy.
It sounds like an attempt to diagnose these guys and what is left of the Republican party.
So you need a digital certificate from Apple. Big deal. Once you get it ($99 developer fee - much cheaper than Visual Studio) you can create apps and deploy them to your iPhone or iTouch. If you go enterprise you can distribute applications to the devices in your enterprise. If you're having problems, maybe you should contact tech support or try another hobby/line of work.
I flattered that you think I'm a hipster. I don't think I even know any. I like and use Apple's products because they work well and well together. If you prefer Linux, Windows, Zunes or whatever, I'm fine with that.
Can you develop Zune software without Windows?
You can develop iPhone/iTouch software and deploy it without any involvement by Apple. Just connect the computer with the application to your device. What you cannot do without using iTunes or your own (probably corporate) server is widely distribute your applications to others around the world.
I'm always amazed how ignorant non-Apple users are about Apple's products and how much disinformation they spew. If you really want to know what you can or cannot do with an Apple device or software, you should ask the people who know - experienced Apple users.
Does it run on Linux?
The purpose of any government policy should be to maximize freedom and autonomy of the individual. Capitalism is the economic manifestation of this principle. It is the idea that anyone may select their own destiny based on their abilities, effort, values, and the resources that are voluntarily given to them by others.
I disagree with you on this point. I don't think that the purpose of government is to maximize freedom and autonomy of individuals. Why would you need government at all then? Obviously I'm not a libertarian. I believe that we form governments to maximize our collective welfare.
Now I believe that in order to maximize our welfare we have to limit the power of others whether they be government officials, aristocrats, labor unions, business and property owners, or common bullies and thugs. So, I tend to see capitalism and market economies as being consistent with freedom and limitations on power, I don't see it as being particularly good at protecting us or insuring that we don't starve. Capitalism essentially harnesses our proclivity to sin (each of the "seven deadly sins" is someone's incentive) for productive uses. However, we have to remember that it works by appealing to our darker natures and as such we need to keep an eye on our most ardent capitalists because they have shown themselves to be both clever and highly motivated.
I agree with you that this does not have an "anti-American" motivation and I'm generally pretty sensitive to that sort of thing. To my mind it's that the EU has a different view of how monopolies should be regulated than the U.S. government does - at this time. I actually agree more with the EU position in the cases of Microsoft and Intel. (I do think the EU tends toward over-regulation instead of letting the markets work while the U.S. seems to be too laissez faire.)
I'm pro-capitalism and pro-market, but here in the U.S. we seem to have forgotten that the objectives of government economic policy should not be the perfect "efficiency" of markets. It should be the well being of it's population over the short, medium and long terms. Capitalism and free markets are a means to this end. They are not the end itself. Neither were mandated by God or advocated by any of the major prophets so why do some people act as if they were?
How can you get 3rd degree burns from a water-based liquid heated to only 180-190 degrees? Second degree yes, and it certainly would be painful, but I understand 3rd degree burns result in charred flesh. Also, the coffee would have cooled a bit while being transported to her and then much more once it was spilled.
I've had coffee at that temperature spilled on me (an entire cup) when I was a kid and I got blisters, not 3rd degree burns. In my case the coffee was made with boiling water that was poured directly into a cup. It spilled on me less than 30 seconds from being poured. I was only wearing a t-shirt on the area where it was spilled - my chest and stomach.
Can anyone explain how what is being claimed here is possible?
Just because you haven't heard of Micro Focus does not mean "noone" has. Micro Focus is very well know in every IT shop that has a mainframe. Yes, COBOL is still the mainstay language for applications in large enterprises. They've been predicting it's imminent death for most of the 30 years I've been in IT, but it's still around. Believe it or not, the also push OO COBOL. Yes, it's as bad and idea as it sounds.
The sad thing is that Borland practically invented the IDE. Microsoft hired away the developers during the 90's and was finally able to make Visual Studio a decent platform.
How far they have fallen.
First of all how can free and open software with an open API be proprietary? In any case, Shuttleworth wasn't advocating making Linux in some way incompatible with the world. He just said that imitating Windows or relying on Windows application compatibility wasn't going to make Linux successful.
Linux is actually far more compatible with the rest of the world than some folks realize. The Linux API has become a standard of sorts. Even some commercial UNIX like AIX support it. By supporting the Linux API on AIX, IBM can run programs developed for Linux on their expensive, proprietary, albeit powerful, commercial UNIX systems. At many levels (below the UI) it's pretty easy to port between Linux and OSX. So there is nothing proprietary about Linux. None of that is the point.
Are the Windows or OSX UIs the best possible UIs? Is it possible for an O/S to support application installation and maintenance better than Windows? Is it possible for an O/S to make better use of hardware resources? Is there a better model for sharing components, resources, etc.? Are there better (more flexible, easier, more transparent, etc.) ways/tools for maintaining an O/S and the stuff that runs on it? Can an O/S be made much more secure than Windows - other than relying on its tiny market share? Can there be better "office" applications than MS Office - better as in you'd use it instead of Office if the price was the same (or free)?
I could ask a lot more questions, but clearly, there are a lot of areas where an O/S can out do Windows or OSX for that matter. Linux can't just be cheaper, it has to be better in ways that people value. That's how it will find its market. If all you can say about Linux or any other O/S is that it's "just like Windows" or "it runs all your Windows programs", then you are saying that you have nothing better than Windows.
I'm now wondering what bothers you the most at this point: the fact that I don't agree with your viewpoint, or the fact that religion is not my reason for disagreeing with you? :)
Neither. You haven't actually responded directly to what I was asking. That's fine because I don't believe you've really pondered much on how you've arrived at whatever sense of morality you may have.
You wrote "if enough people agree with it ...". I was asking how you determined what the moral standard was so I assumed that you were answering that question. Your response says you were not.
Many of the arguments about what makes something moral has more to do with self-interest than morality. Obviously I want to prevent murder for the sake of myself and family. I don't want murders out there endangering us. I want to help fight disease so neither myself nor my family will fall victim to it. This is all self-interest. It's no different than intervening in one country committing crimes against humanity because it is next door while ignoring (or standing by) while worse crimes are committed in some country in Africa e.g. Kosovo and Rwanda. I'm not saying that this is your position, but I think we often delude ourselves into thinking we are good and moral when we are just acting in what we see to be our self-interest.
BTW, I gave credit for the golden rule to those others than just Christians. My term "religious nuts" was sarcasm since I see so much religion bashing around here. I'm perfectly fine with the vast majority of religious people. The few extremists are another matter, but I don't equate religion with extremism.
So you say that "if enough people agree with it, then it doesn't matter ...". For centuries most people accepted slavery. Did that make it moral? It was a handful of "religious nut cases" starting in Britain that started in motion the end of slave trading in the west. At other times large majorities have favored imperialism, war and genocide. I suppose that made it moral. You are in favor of throwing Gays into prison I suppose. The fact is that societies have continuously redefined what is moral and what is not. My point was that if that's how morality is defined - by tribal, national or cultural consensus, then how can anyone be so certain about their own moral judgements - certain to the point where they condemn or those who do not share their views?
It's interesting that you ended up with what is also known as the "golden rule" as your principle test. It's a good rule. Someone named J. Christ is often credited as the author though he credited his "dad". Other religious nuts (aka prophets) have preached similar things. Oddly enough, these guys always seemed to belong to what at the time was a small minority.
My original post was intended to chide the author of the post I was responding to and the rest of the readers about the tendency to groupthink and to attempt preemptively discount contrary opinions by taking the stance that the author and the like-minded had a monopoly on truth and morality. When there is a disaster in the world, it isn't a given amongst mankind that we should all rush whatever assistance we can. Some cultures are a bit more fatalistic and see natural disasters differently. Some folks are more - well what I would call selfish though they would differ (inward looking?) - and others think that it's a waste of precious resources to react to disasters instead of preventing them. I don't think we should assume that holding these points of view necessarily makes someone less moral or immoral.
We don't really know the carrying capacity of the Earth, and at any rate allowing billions to die isn't a valid solution by any reasonable moral standard.
That's interesting. So your statement preemptively declares all opposing positions as being "unreasonable". You also assume that "valid" solutions must be moral as you define it and that we must have a solution.
Why is death by disease immoral? Why is not making extraordinary efforts to treat the diseases of others immoral? By who's standard other than yours?
If you are a religious person than I can understand your position. If you are not then I wonder how you arrived at it. I don't know where you are coming from here, but I do wonder about the large number of people in the West who renounce or ignore religious faith and yet still have this sense of moral certainty and who freely make moral judgement of one and all.
I'm not trying to pick on you personally, but /. is full of people who on one hand are quite certain in their moral judgements and yet mock religion and the religious. It's sort of a "mock religion" they seem to follow if you'll pardon the pun.
I've heard the 20 million estimate many times, but not the 100 million. That sounds exaggerated (like the supposed "150,000 missing children" in the U.S. each year - the math doesn't work and it includes child custody disputes, kids who go to a friends house without telling their caretakers and many other fairly harmless incidents. Do you have a real source? Wikipedia is not the most reliable source. That's not to say that I think we are over reacting yet. I don't know, and the death rate among teens and young adults certainly is a cause for concern.
I don't know why you keep harping on this, but I'd think he'd be more concerned about the making entertainment out of military devices and activities - which is what most games do. Using an iPod as a portable computer during war doesn't lead to warlike tendencies. Does playing at warfare or murder (e.g. first person shooter games and all the games about war and combat)?
I'm a Gandhi loving,
There's not many who truly love Gandhi & respect his teachings who see militarisation of an entertainment device as 'great'.
I don't see that as in consistent. I don't agree that Gandhi's approach works everywhere with everyone under all circumstances. His approach of passive resistance works best when confronting a nation of people who see themselves as civilized and decent so it worked against the British. Martin Luther King used Gandhi's approach in the U.S. and that worked well. If the Irish Catholics' resistance to Britain followed Gandhi instead of the IRA, the troubles would have ended sooner and more easily. If the Palestinians used Gandhi's approach against Israel instead of following the PLO there might now be one secular state where people of all denominations were equal.
I don't think Gandhi would have been successful against Hitler or Stalin or Mao. They would have killed him and moved on. There is a time for fighting.
I'm a Gandhi loving, walking and public transport (though a Prius would be O.K. if I had to drive), latte (no cream, please) sipping, Bush hating guy and I think this is great. I'm also an Army vet with an intel and law enforcement background. Did I mention that I'm also a big Obama supporter? Take your stereotypes and shove them where the sun don't shine (on your body).