Microsoft is one of the first (if not THE first) to do serious usability laboratory testing for microcomputer software.
The user is someone off the street, heavily pre-interviewed to fit various target demographics of experience or workstyles.
The instructions handed may go all the way from an unopened box in the chair (install and explore this), to a preconfigured setup and a few written instructions as if from a boss.
If usability angst testimonies are filtered between the neophyte to the guru, how can the guru comprehend what the neophyte needs? Guesswork makes for crap software.
This kind of testing is good, of course, but I'd like to see someone extend this. Follow novices throughfor months. See not just what they have problems with at first, but what's frustrating and/or slow after the user gets more experience.
All the usability testing I've heard about focuses on novices and how easy the learning curve is, very little on how difficult it is to use once you've figured it out.
And there is the very clean port tree. About 4500 programs in/usr/ports, present in the form of patches to the original versions. For instance:
cd/usr/ports/graphics/gimp1
make install
[Downloads source of the gimp]
[Patches sources]
[Compile]
[Install]
Of course all needed libraries will be fetched/patched/compiled in the way.
And all the ports are in CVS too, so
cvsup -L 2 ports-supfile
will keep you up-to-date with latest ports
How does this work? (I've just installed FreeBSD but haven't even got the box on line yet.)
cvsup -L 2 ports-supfile just gets the new patches right? The actual source for the packages comes when you do a make in that directory.
More importantly, is there a way to update and rebuild all of the ports you have installed with one command? I don't want to have to track the versions of all the ports I have installed to know that I need to update them. (Maybe I've been spoiled by apt-get:>)
thejeff
Re:Trial by money as bad as patent idiocy
on
Patent Warfare
·
· Score: 1
Trial by money is a longstanding feature of the US legal system. The only way out of this is to adopt the English system whereby the loser in a civil suit has to pay both his own and the other sides costs. This also applies if the litigant withdraws. Both these measures tend to make people think wice before they sue and make nusience lawsuits largly an American phenmena.
This cuts down on nuisance law suits, but it also cuts down on legitamate but not guaranteed lawsuits either. If an individual sues a corporation over something that is valid, but could be interpreted either way, and loses they will now owe the millions that were spent in defense. A corporation also has the resources to stretch a suit out for years with appeals etc. If you can't keep up and have to withdraw, bang, you have to pay their costs.
I don't know what the solution is. Stricter rules against frivolous suits perhaps. But then how do you decide?
thejeff
I also like how Dan Savage has pointed out that if Gore loses this election, and Nader picks up 2 or 3 %, the Democratic Party isn't going to go LEFT. It's going to go right, to compete for the bulk of votes, not the fringe votes. Nothing other than a Democratic victory could make the party head left.
I don't buy it. The last Democratic victories just confirmed the party strategy of heading right, why should another one change anything? They can head right only as long as they believe they can gain votes at the center without losing votes on the left. They may still decide that they'll gain more than they'll lose, but the more left votes they lose the less likely that is.
Hubbard and Heinlein were the founders of rather vicious religious cults (Scientolog and the CAW). Anything either author said is highly suspect.
You're entitled to your opinion of both authors, and I personally agree with you on Hubbard. On the other hand I'm not sure where you got your info on Heinlein and the Church of All Worlds.
First, as far as I know Heinlein didn't found, had no direct connection with, and I've never even heard of him commenting on the CAW. His fictional creation of CAW in Stranger certainly inspired it, but he was certainly not involved with it to anything like the extent Hubbard was with Scientology.
Second, what's the evidence for vicious? (Or even cult, assuming you using that in a derogatory sense, not just as 'non mainstream') They appear to be another pagan group no more vicious than the next. I'm not a member, and I don't know anyone who is/was, but I've hung out in pagan circles and I've never heard any talk about the typical cult abuses; brainwashing etc. I suspect, given the inspiration, that they have a somewhat loose attitude towards sex, but I've haven't heard of any sex abuse cases. What's so vicious about them.
If you've got evidence, or even anecdotes I don't, I'm curious. (I'm also probably way to late to get a response, but...) thejeff
Remember that if Time-Warner and Di$ney hadn't lobbied Congress so hard, a lot of their characters and properties would have their copyrights expiring very soon.
I've never understood this. According to my understanding of intellectual property. Mickey Mouse, etc, should be trademarked not copyrighted. The original movies etc would be public domain, but not any use of the characters. This would be irritating to Disney, but hardly threatening. I'm not sure what would happen in the case of, say a public domain movie featuring a trademarked character. Seems to me the logical thing would be to allow distribution of the work that had passed into public domain, but not allow new works using the trademarked properties.
Is my understanding of IP law completely wrong here? Is Mickey actually copyright?
I also strongly agree with several posters here that corporations, while a useful legal fiction, should not be treated as persons. In the absence of a reversal of that decision, which is hardly likely, states should be much more willing to use their right to revoke a company's charter, as punishment for serious offenses.
Also, it seems to share a number of RMS's requirements, such as the patent issue. From MS's license: a. Patents. Any patent obtained by a redistributor of the Program must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
What does this mean? Literally read it doesn't seem to be referring to Patents relating to this Program, but to any patents the redistributor obtains. Also it doesn't require patents to be licensed, you apparently can withhold permission to use your patent, or you can give permission, you just can't charge. Does that make any sense at all, or am I just horribly misreading it? thejeff
True, I was using a GUI config as an example of simplicity and the text as an example of complexity, because they are widely percieved that way. Obviously, you can make a GUI that offers all the functionality of hand editing the text file, but it seems to me, that you will also gain all the complexity of the text file. If there are a large number of possible parameters to set and a large number of settings for each, the GUI will become crowded and unreadable, or have some form of nested structure that must be traversed to find the right setting. While making the user remember odd syntax is bad, making a user who does remember the odd syntax jump through GUI hoops to change it is also bad. It also complicates scripting, remote administration etc. My theory is to use GUIs, or menu driven text programs, or even just simplified heavily commented sections of the config file to handle the common setting that most users will need. And to have these write to the normal config files, so that they can be hand edited for the really complex stuff. From my experience anyway, by the time you figure out which of the 'advanced' options you need and how to make it work, it's not the syntax that is the confusing part. thejeff
>> So many people are convinced that the solution >> is to "dumb down" the desktop environments to >> suit the users. Personally I think that idea is >> way off base, and I tend to agree more with the >> concept of hiding advanced functionality in >> order to not overwhelm new users. > If you think it's a bad thing, you call >it "dumbing down". If you think it's a good >thing, you call it "hiding advanced >functionality". Really, they are the same thing. >It's what KDE does fairly well, and what vi most >certainly does not.
They're not the same thing, at least as I understand the terms. "Dumbing down" involves removing the complicated stuff, while hiding involves creating an easy way to do the simpler tasks without having to master all the complexity while still allowing the original complex way to be used by those who need it.
An example would be a GUI configuration tool for some application. Both GUI's could look the same and be as easy to use for the common configuration choices, but the dumbed down version wouldn't work with a hand edited config file. Either by not using a text file, or by not being able to understand a file with entries it didn't expect. The "hidden" version would allow the user to hand edit the file if wanted something more complex than the GUI was designed to handle.
I had something of this problem with Suse's YaST program. If I recall correctly (it's been a year or more and several versions since I used it, so I don't know if this is still correct) YaST's configuration method was to overwrite the normal configuration files with files it generated from your input. This worked pretty well as long as you used YaST to configure everything. You could also edit YaST's text file, but that was a step more complicated than editing the config files directly. thejeff
Assuming that technological development and sopisticated social structures are at least partly a response to environmental conditions, the fact that most Native North Americans were living lives largely unchanged until the Eurpeans arrived says that North America was a good place to live -- abundant flora, fauna and fresh water sources. I'd wager that many (most?) Native Americans were hunter/gatherers simply becuase it was easy to do so. Had there been problems with this mode of living, I would think we would have seen more fixed agriculture (which means food when the forests aren't cooperating), and more elaborate social strucures, since fixed agriculture means everyone isn't always hunting and gathering.
Actually, although there remained a number of hunter-gatherer cultures before European contact, there were also a large number of settled agricultural societies. Look for info on the Mound Builders from Ohio through the Southeast. Pueblo dwellers in the Southwest. etc.
Not to be politically correct, but there is also alot of evidence that some/most of these cultures were devasted by European diseases that moved in advance of European contact. Some estimates up to 90% mortality. This dropped these civilizations below a viable level, so when the European settlers arrived they found scattered tribes of hunter-gatherers living among the ruins of their ancestors.
Somewhat offtopic, but it suggests that either good conditions don't stop cultures from evolving to agriculture, or that the conditions weren't as good as some claim. thejeff
An earlier species of human (neanderthal) got squeezed out by us due to the fact that they were strict vegetarians, with large teeth for grinding things up. We have molars for grinding AND incisors for tearing (meat). We also have no compunctions about pouncing on a fly-and-maggot-ridden kill or carrion and carting it off to the wife and kids.
I've got no problems with the rest of your post, but I had to jump on this. Unless what we know about neanderthals has changed very recently, they were far from vegetarians. Their tooth structure is very much like ours, certainly adapted for the same type of diet. It is theorized that they got much of their nutrition hunting the megafauna of the ice ages. Bones of various animals found associated with neanderthal fossils and common injuries similar to those suffered by rodeo riders attest to this.
The closest relatives who appear to be herbivores would possibly be some of the australopithecines at least a million years earlier. thejeff
An earlier species of human (neanderthal) got squeezed out by us due to the fact that they were strict vegetarians, with large teeth for grinding things up. We have molars for grinding AND incisors for tearing (meat). We also have no compunctions about pouncing on a fly-and-maggot-ridden kill or carrion and carting it off to the wife and kids.
I've got no problems with the rest of your post, but I had to jump on this. Unless what we know about neanderthals has changed very recently, they were far from vegetarians. Their tooth structure is very much like ours, certainly adapted for the same type of diet. It is theorized that they got much of their nutrition hunting the megafauna of the ice ages. Bones of various animals found associated with neanderthal fossils and common injuries similar to those suffered by rodeo riders attest to this.
The closest relatives who appear to be herbivores would possibly be some of the australopithecines at least a million years earlier. thejeff
If you want a "logical" argument for religion, though, we live in a finite Universe. Therefore, there is a finite number of concious beings within that Universe. Thus, on any given scale you care to use, there -is-, indeed, a being that you could call supreme, at least within that respect.
This doesn't imply God, though, or even a god. It shows that there is a wisest and a most powerful, for example, but it doesn't show that they are the same being. So supreme is misleading, and I don't see how this is an argument for religion or even spirituality.
Given that, and given that there is no evidence to contradict the hypothesis that we live in a foamy multiverse, and also given that the energy required to trigger the Inflation effect (which would create an entirely new Universe) requires energies we can acieve today (although not the energy density), it is ENTIRLEY within the realms of physical science to talk about someone creating a Universe. As such, it is patently stupid for any scientist to reject the possibility that this did, indeed, happen in the case of THIS Universe.
Even granting this for the sake of argument, does this mean we should worship the scientist in the previous universe, who pushed the button that triggered the Inflation effect? He would, I guess, qualify as the Creator, but doesn't need to have any other attributes of God. thejeff
Interesting arguments to justify what seems to be basically a selfish approach to life. It applies mostly to the crisis managemant mode of charity. And I probably would have to agree with you there. Short term fixes do nothing to fix long term problems and may, in fact, make them worse.
On the other hand there are also long-term approaches. In every case that has been observed, education of a population, particularly of the female part of the population has led to a, usually drastic, drop in population growth. In terms of your concern with long-term competition for resources, this seems to make sense. It might not help you, but it will help your descendants.
Finally you disparage charity, but claim
The standard of living can be raised across the board only by improvement/preservation of the environment. Beauty is a consolation to the hopeless. Nothing is more universally beautiful than nature.
May I assume from this that you do contribute in some fashion (money, time, etc) to environmental causes?
All the other is religious fluff. I'm not really worried about the religious impact of this since my only religion is science. If it can be done, it will be done and it should be done properly. In my opinion its only a matter of time before they clone/create a human like creature, and why shouldn't we allow it? I have no objections against a creature that is perfectly happy being my slave (which somehow seems the greatest fear of 'ethical' people). The word slave only has a sour taste because of the way human slaves were treated in the past. You have to pull it out of its context of the past and think of life as large scale chemistry. An android is just another tool. Sure there's no need to treat them in a cruel way but then we can built in a friendly attitude can't we?
The problem I have with this is that, probably before we can make humanoids this way, we'll be able to brainwash existing humans this way.
Re:The greatest evils in the world...
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
Actually, just to further pick nits, the original quote is from Aleister Crowley and was "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
"An it harm none" was added, by Wiccans, I believe, probably because they didn't like the implications of the original.
To go a little farther into the philosophy behind it. It does not mean "Do whatever you want." For Crowley, Will had a distinct magical meaning. Closer to discover you True Destiny and pursue that at all costs than to "do whatever you want." An alternate phrasing that I've always preferred is "Thou hast no right but to do thy Will." Same statement, but the implications differ.
According to the founding fathers every able bodied man in this country is part of the militia. A militia should be effectively armed in a manner which would allow them to contend with armed troops.
I want to be in the part that gets issued the F-16 or the tanks. I'd say these would be needed to contend effectively with any modern military force. At a bare minimum, we should have the right to such common militia/guerilla weapons as mortars, rpgs, SAMs etc. M-16's are nice, but if that's all you've got, there's no point in even trying to contend with even a 3rd rate army.
(I shouldn't have posted, but I like this idea.) thejeff
The actual disinformation scenario I've seen described involved keeping it secret as long as you can, but if you find out it's likely to leak out, leak an exagerated version to something like the Weekly World News. Then no reputable news source will touch it.
You don't call attention to it until it's going to be revealed anyway. Then you make sure that unbelievable exagerations are revealed too, and anyone talking about the true version, will be assumed to be talking about the ridiculous version and thus ignored as a paranoid lunatic.
As for R.A.W., yeah he's a crackpot, but it's an odd sort of crackpot who spends half of his books telling you "This is what happened to me, but don't believe me, I might be lying or crazy, try it yourself."
It seems to me that the difference lies in the modification rather than distribution. What originally started RMS on the whole Free Software thing, was not being able to fix a program he needed to use.(A printer driver, I believe. And I know there are philosophical reasons. From accounts I've read this was the trigger) This argument doesn't really apply other digital media.
Software is demonstratably improved by allowing users to modify it. Does anyone really think that would be the case with art, books, music etc. You can make a change to a piece of software that increases speed, stops a crash, add functionality etc, and there can usually be a reasonable concensus that it is an improvement. There are no similar hard and fast improvements that can be made to the other categories.
The argument that the cost of copying is zero so the cost should be zero applies, but with software there is a return to the author in the form of improved code, with creators of art, music, books etc, I strongly doubt most would consider any changes an improvement.
(Documentation and technical/reference manuals are probably an exception to this. They could profitably be made free.)
On the English only point: True, English is not the most common language in the world. It is though, by far the most common second language. If you've got 2 people whose native language is not the same, English is almost certainly what they'll speak to each other. This is why English is thought of as an international language. thejeff
Those legal theories are bogus. Trademark laws, as they are applied everywhere but online) would not restrict the Sun Enterprise 4500 window washing service you describe. They only restrict usage within a field. Unfortunately many companies seem to assume that they automatically get the right to anything they have trademarked as a domain name. Under trademark law they don't. They only would if the current owner is competing in their business. Most people being sued can't, as you suggest, face the lawsuit. Still I don't think that any civil claim that's rejected should result in the plaintiff being responsible for the defendants legal bills. This could greatly hamper lawsuits against large rich corporations. Would you sue, say Microsoft (just to choose everyone's favorite evil empire:), knowing you had a good case, maybe a 99% chance of winning, but knowing you would be responsible for the millions Microsoft could spend defending itself, should you lose. Perhaps allowing the judge to rule a suit without merit and in those cases make the plaintiff pay. thejeff
Where did this come from? This group was students. The article talked about juggling classes, part time jobs and this project. I saw no indication that these women were being supported by male breadwinners. (As students they may well be supported by parents, but that's irrelevant to your point and as likely to apply to male students). There is probably a certain amount of truth in you r theory, but it's off-topic and not really a new development, other than the stuff done changing. It's mostly an upper/upper-middle class thing. In the past it's mostly been volunteer work etc. I don't any real change here. Now women being breadwinners so men can 'do stuff' (code open source projects?), That would be more of a change. thejeff
By this definition, it is practically impossible not to censor. If you do not make everything you come across permanently available for everyone to see you are censoring. Otherwise I censoring some things by choosing not to publish them, by only letting certain people see it (Slashdot for example, is only accessible to the minority of the world's population with internet access), or by removing it later. By defining censorship so broadly, it loses meaning. Every publisher is censoring, so how can it be bad to censor. thejeff
1) There's been lots of discussion of this. I don't really have anything new to add.
2) I don't think this is true. I thought that -1 was the bottom. i.e a -1 post moderated downwards remains at -1. If you're right this should be changed. Maybe I'll waste a point trying it, if I get moderator access again. This would however seem more like a bug than censorship.
3) Once again, not a bad idea, if the practical and legal objections are overcome, but not censorship. Certainly not on Slashdot's part. Nor on the part of the linked parties. There is no obligation to always provide access to a work you once published. (Now if a organization had a policy of archiving all it's old publications, but you found that articles that generated criticism or controversy were missing you might have a case for self-censorship.)
Haven't read the 'Life In Our Anti-Christian America' compilation, so I can't really commment on their understanding.
I on the other hand have heard this argument before, and have even posted about it on/. before.
I accept that your intentions are good. I don't care. The fact is I know that you're wrong about burning in hell just as surely as you know you're right. (One of us of course is wrong.) To use your analogy, if I knew there was no cliff, I would be offended if people kept trying to stop me. The trouble is we can't prove whether or not there is a cliff.
The main problem with this argument though is that it can be used to justify anything. There is nothing I can do to someone that is as bad as what's waiting in hell, so anything I do to convince someone to be saved is ok. This logic not only justifies things like the Inquisition, but makes it almost morally necessary. Now, I'm not saying you're trying to go that far, but Christians have a long history of forcing their beliefs on others, by violence or more subtle means, and this argument is a large part of the reason. This is what scares me most about Christianity. Everything they try to do to me is for my own good. From their point of view. A liar is nowhere near as dangerous as someone who knows he's right.
Slashdot Mirror
The user is someone off the street, heavily pre-interviewed to fit various target demographics of experience or workstyles.
The instructions handed may go all the way from an unopened box in the chair (install and explore this), to a preconfigured setup and a few written instructions as if from a boss.
If usability angst testimonies are filtered between the neophyte to the guru, how can the guru comprehend what the neophyte needs? Guesswork makes for crap software.
This kind of testing is good, of course, but I'd like to see someone extend this. Follow novices throughfor months. See not just what they have problems with at first, but what's frustrating and/or slow after the user gets more experience.
All the usability testing I've heard about focuses on novices and how easy the learning curve is, very little on how difficult it is to use once you've figured it out.
thejeff
cd
make install
[Downloads source of the gimp]
[Patches sources]
[Compile]
[Install]
Of course all needed libraries will be fetched/patched/compiled in the way.
And all the ports are in CVS too, so
cvsup -L 2 ports-supfile
will keep you up-to-date with latest ports
How does this work? (I've just installed FreeBSD but haven't even got the box on line yet.)
cvsup -L 2 ports-supfile just gets the new patches right? The actual source for the packages comes when you do a make in that directory.
More importantly, is there a way to update and rebuild all of the ports you have installed with one command? I don't want to have to track the versions of all the ports I have installed to know that I need to update them. (Maybe I've been spoiled by apt-get :>)
thejeff
This cuts down on nuisance law suits, but it also cuts down on legitamate but not guaranteed lawsuits either. If an individual sues a corporation over something that is valid, but could be interpreted either way, and loses they will now owe the millions that were spent in defense. A corporation also has the resources to stretch a suit out for years with appeals etc. If you can't keep up and have to withdraw, bang, you have to pay their costs.
I don't know what the solution is. Stricter rules against frivolous suits perhaps. But then how do you decide?
thejeff
I don't buy it. The last Democratic victories just confirmed the party strategy of heading right, why should another one change anything? They can head right only as long as they believe they can gain votes at the center without losing votes on the left. They may still decide that they'll gain more than they'll lose, but the more left votes they lose the less likely that is.
thejeff
Hubbard and Heinlein were the founders of rather vicious religious cults (Scientolog and the CAW). Anything either author said is highly suspect.
You're entitled to your opinion of both authors, and I personally agree with you on Hubbard. On the other hand I'm not sure where you got your info on Heinlein and the Church of All Worlds.
First, as far as I know Heinlein didn't found, had no direct connection with, and I've never even heard of him commenting on the CAW. His fictional creation of CAW in Stranger certainly inspired it, but he was certainly not involved with it to anything like the extent Hubbard was with Scientology.
Second, what's the evidence for vicious? (Or even cult, assuming you using that in a derogatory sense, not just as 'non mainstream') They appear to be another pagan group no more vicious than the next. I'm not a member, and I don't know anyone who is/was, but I've hung out in pagan circles and I've never heard any talk about the typical cult abuses; brainwashing etc. I suspect, given the inspiration, that they have a somewhat loose attitude towards sex, but I've haven't heard of any sex abuse cases. What's so vicious about them.
If you've got evidence, or even anecdotes I don't, I'm curious. (I'm also probably way to late to get a response, but...)
thejeff
I've never understood this. According to my understanding of intellectual property. Mickey Mouse, etc, should be trademarked not copyrighted. The original movies etc would be public domain, but not any use of the characters. This would be irritating to Disney, but hardly threatening. I'm not sure what would happen in the case of, say a public domain movie featuring a trademarked character. Seems to me the logical thing would be to allow distribution of the work that had passed into public domain, but not allow new works using the trademarked properties.
Is my understanding of IP law completely wrong here? Is Mickey actually copyright?
I also strongly agree with several posters here that corporations, while a useful legal fiction, should not be treated as persons. In the absence of a reversal of that decision, which is hardly likely, states should be much more willing to use their right to revoke a company's charter, as punishment for serious offenses.
That's not very likely either.
thejeff
a. Patents. Any patent obtained by a redistributor of the Program must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
What does this mean? Literally read it doesn't seem to be referring to Patents relating to this Program, but to any patents the redistributor obtains. Also it doesn't require patents to be licensed, you apparently can withhold permission to use your patent, or you can give permission, you just can't charge. Does that make any sense at all, or am I just horribly misreading it?
thejeff
True, I was using a GUI config as an example of simplicity and the text as an example of complexity, because they are widely percieved that way.
Obviously, you can make a GUI that offers all the functionality of hand editing the text file, but it seems to me, that you will also gain all the complexity of the text file. If there are a large number of possible parameters to set and a large number of settings for each, the GUI will become crowded and unreadable, or have some form of nested structure that must be traversed to find the right setting.
While making the user remember odd syntax is bad, making a user who does remember the odd syntax jump through GUI hoops to change it is also bad. It also complicates scripting, remote administration etc.
My theory is to use GUIs, or menu driven text programs, or even just simplified heavily commented sections of the config file to handle the common setting that most users will need. And to have these write to the normal config files, so that they can be hand edited for the really complex stuff. From my experience anyway, by the time you figure out which of the 'advanced' options you need and how to make it work, it's not the syntax that is the confusing part.
thejeff
They're not the same thing, at least as I understand the terms. "Dumbing down" involves removing the complicated stuff, while hiding involves creating an easy way to do the simpler tasks without having to master all the complexity while still allowing the original complex way to be used by those who need it.
An example would be a GUI configuration tool for some application. Both GUI's could look the same and be as easy to use for the common configuration choices, but the dumbed down version wouldn't work with a hand edited config file. Either by not using a text file, or by not being able to understand a file with entries it didn't expect. The "hidden" version would allow the user to hand edit the file if wanted something more complex than the GUI was designed to handle.
I had something of this problem with Suse's YaST program. If I recall correctly (it's been a year or more and several versions since I used it, so I don't know if this is still correct) YaST's configuration method was to overwrite the normal configuration files with files it generated from your input. This worked pretty well as long as you used YaST to configure everything. You could also edit YaST's text file, but that was a step more complicated than editing the config files directly. thejeff
Assuming that technological development and sopisticated social structures are at least partly a response to environmental conditions, the fact that most Native North Americans were living lives largely unchanged until the Eurpeans arrived says that North America was a good place to live -- abundant flora, fauna and fresh water sources. I'd wager that many (most?) Native Americans were hunter/gatherers simply becuase it was easy to do so. Had there been problems with this mode of living, I would think we would have seen more fixed agriculture (which means food when the forests aren't cooperating), and more elaborate social strucures, since fixed agriculture means everyone isn't always hunting and gathering.
Actually, although there remained a number of hunter-gatherer cultures before European contact, there were also a large number of settled agricultural societies. Look for info on the Mound Builders from Ohio through the Southeast. Pueblo dwellers in the Southwest. etc.
Not to be politically correct, but there is also alot of evidence that some/most of these cultures were devasted by European diseases that moved in advance of European contact. Some estimates up to 90% mortality. This dropped these civilizations below a viable level, so when the European settlers arrived they found scattered tribes of hunter-gatherers living among the ruins of their ancestors.
Somewhat offtopic, but it suggests that either good conditions don't stop cultures from evolving to agriculture, or that the conditions weren't as good as some claim.
thejeff
I've got no problems with the rest of your post, but I had to jump on this. Unless what we know about neanderthals has changed very recently, they were far from vegetarians. Their tooth structure is very much like ours, certainly adapted for the same type of diet. It is theorized that they got much of their nutrition hunting the megafauna of the ice ages. Bones of various animals found associated with neanderthal fossils and common injuries similar to those suffered by rodeo riders attest to this.
The closest relatives who appear to be herbivores would possibly be some of the australopithecines at least a million years earlier. thejeff
I've got no problems with the rest of your post, but I had to jump on this. Unless what we know about neanderthals has changed very recently, they were far from vegetarians. Their tooth structure is very much like ours, certainly adapted for the same type of diet. It is theorized that they got much of their nutrition hunting the megafauna of the ice ages. Bones of various animals found associated with neanderthal fossils and common injuries similar to those suffered by rodeo riders attest to this.
The closest relatives who appear to be herbivores would possibly be some of the australopithecines at least a million years earlier.
thejeff
This doesn't imply God, though, or even a god. It shows that there is a wisest and a most powerful, for example, but it doesn't show that they are the same being. So supreme is misleading, and I don't see how this is an argument for religion or even spirituality.
Given that, and given that there is no evidence to contradict the hypothesis that we live in a foamy multiverse, and also given that the energy required to trigger the Inflation effect (which would create an entirely new Universe) requires energies we can acieve today (although not the energy density), it is ENTIRLEY within the realms of physical science to talk about someone creating a Universe. As such, it is patently stupid for any scientist to reject the possibility that this did, indeed, happen in the case of THIS Universe.
Even granting this for the sake of argument, does this mean we should worship the scientist in the previous universe, who pushed the button that triggered the Inflation effect? He would, I guess, qualify as the Creator, but doesn't need to have any other attributes of God. thejeff
On the other hand there are also long-term approaches. In every case that has been observed, education of a population, particularly of the female part of the population has led to a, usually drastic, drop in population growth. In terms of your concern with long-term competition for resources, this seems to make sense. It might not help you, but it will help your descendants.
Finally you disparage charity, but claim
May I assume from this that you do contribute in some fashion (money, time, etc) to environmental causes?thejeff
"An it harm none" was added, by Wiccans, I believe, probably because they didn't like the implications of the original.
To go a little farther into the philosophy behind it. It does not mean "Do whatever you want." For Crowley, Will had a distinct magical meaning. Closer to discover you True Destiny and pursue that at all costs than to "do whatever you want."
An alternate phrasing that I've always preferred is "Thou hast no right but to do thy Will." Same statement, but the implications differ.
thejeff
According to the founding fathers every able bodied man in this country is part of the militia.
A militia should be effectively armed in a manner which would allow them to contend with armed troops.
I want to be in the part that gets issued the F-16 or the tanks. I'd say these would be needed to contend effectively with any modern military force.
At a bare minimum, we should have the right to such common militia/guerilla weapons as mortars, rpgs, SAMs etc. M-16's are nice, but if that's all you've got, there's no point in even trying to contend with even a 3rd rate army.
(I shouldn't have posted, but I like this idea.)
thejeff
The actual disinformation scenario I've seen described involved keeping it secret as long as you can, but if you find out it's likely to leak out, leak an exagerated version to something like the Weekly World News. Then no reputable news source will touch it.
You don't call attention to it until it's going to be revealed anyway. Then you make sure that unbelievable exagerations are revealed too, and anyone talking about the true version, will be assumed to be talking about the ridiculous version and thus ignored as a paranoid lunatic.
As for R.A.W., yeah he's a crackpot, but it's an odd sort of crackpot who spends half of his books telling you "This is what happened to me, but don't believe me, I might be lying or crazy, try it yourself."
thejeff
It seems to me that the difference lies in the modification rather than distribution. What originally started RMS on the whole Free Software thing, was not being able to fix a program he needed to use.(A printer driver, I believe. And I know there are philosophical reasons. From accounts I've read this was the trigger) This argument doesn't really apply other digital media.
Software is demonstratably improved by allowing users to modify it. Does anyone really think that would be the case with art, books, music etc. You can make a change to a piece of software that increases speed, stops a crash, add functionality etc, and there can usually be a reasonable concensus that it is an improvement. There are no similar hard and fast improvements that can be made to the other categories.
The argument that the cost of copying is zero so the cost should be zero applies, but with software there is a return to the author in the form of improved code, with creators of art, music, books etc, I strongly doubt most would consider any changes an improvement.
(Documentation and technical/reference manuals are probably an exception to this. They could profitably be made free.)
thejeff
On the English only point: True, English is not the most common language in the world. It is though, by far the most common second language. If you've got 2 people whose native language is not the same, English is almost certainly what they'll speak to each other. This is why English is thought of as an international language.
thejeff
Those legal theories are bogus. :), knowing you had a good case, maybe a 99% chance of winning, but knowing you would be responsible for the millions Microsoft could spend defending itself, should you lose. Perhaps allowing the judge to rule a suit without merit and in those cases make the plaintiff pay.
Trademark laws, as they are applied everywhere but online) would not restrict the Sun Enterprise 4500 window washing service you describe. They only restrict usage within a field.
Unfortunately many companies seem to assume that they automatically get the right to anything they have trademarked as a domain name. Under trademark law they don't. They only would if the current owner is competing in their business. Most people being sued can't, as you suggest, face the lawsuit.
Still I don't think that any civil claim that's rejected should result in the plaintiff being responsible for the defendants legal bills. This could greatly hamper lawsuits against large rich corporations. Would you sue, say Microsoft (just to choose everyone's favorite evil empire
thejeff
Where did this come from?
This group was students. The article talked about juggling classes, part time jobs and this project. I saw no indication that these women were being supported by male breadwinners. (As students they may well be supported by parents, but that's irrelevant to your point and as likely to apply to male students).
There is probably a certain amount of truth in you r theory, but it's off-topic and not really a new development, other than the stuff done changing. It's mostly an upper/upper-middle class thing. In the past it's mostly been volunteer work etc. I don't any real change here.
Now women being breadwinners so men can 'do stuff' (code open source projects?), That would be more of a change.
thejeff
By this definition, it is practically impossible not to censor. If you do not make everything you come across permanently available for everyone to see you are censoring. Otherwise I censoring some things by choosing not to publish them, by only letting certain people see it (Slashdot for example, is only accessible to the minority of the world's population with internet access), or by removing it later.
By defining censorship so broadly, it loses meaning. Every publisher is censoring, so how can it be bad to censor.
thejeff
1) There's been lots of discussion of this. I don't really have anything new to add.
2) I don't think this is true. I thought that -1 was the bottom. i.e a -1 post moderated downwards remains at -1. If you're right this should be changed. Maybe I'll waste a point trying it, if I get moderator access again. This would however seem more like a bug than censorship.
3) Once again, not a bad idea, if the practical and legal objections are overcome, but not censorship. Certainly not on Slashdot's part. Nor on the part of the linked parties. There is no obligation to always provide access to a work you once published. (Now if a organization had a policy of archiving all it's old publications, but you found that articles that generated criticism or controversy were missing you might have a case for self-censorship.)
thejeff
Haven't read the 'Life In Our Anti-Christian America' compilation, so I can't really commment on their understanding.
/. before.
I on the other hand have heard this argument before, and have even posted about it on
I accept that your intentions are good. I don't care. The fact is I know that you're wrong about burning in hell just as surely as you know you're right. (One of us of course is wrong.)
To use your analogy, if I knew there was no cliff, I would be offended if people kept trying to stop me. The trouble is we can't prove whether or not there is a cliff.
The main problem with this argument though is that it can be used to justify anything. There is nothing I can do to someone that is as bad as what's waiting in hell, so anything I do to convince someone to be saved is ok. This logic not only justifies things like the Inquisition, but makes it almost morally necessary. Now, I'm not saying you're trying to go that far, but Christians have a long history of forcing their beliefs on others, by violence or more subtle means, and this argument is a large part of the reason.
This is what scares me most about Christianity. Everything they try to do to me is for my own good. From their point of view. A liar is nowhere near as dangerous as someone who knows he's right.
thejeff