Look at the lower right corner of the image and there are two specs that are travelling from bottom right to top left at the same angle as another spec was travelling across the field of view. One is slightly larger than the original spec that you can see in the top of the image, which is what I was assuming you were talking about. I'm just curious, if those other specs of reflected light could be other parts of the spacecraft that came off or something similar or else are just some visual artifacts of some sort.
not sure why there would be a sudden flash visable from so far away. The white that we are actually seeing is reflected light off dust that has been ejected up from the impact not from any explosion as such. Also, if the probe penetrated the surface a ways then you would not see the disintegration, but only the result. But that is all part of the experiment, to see how far the probe would penetrate and what kind of crater and how much material it would eject.
"Lack of standardization adoption for filesystem layout, software installation and configuration?"
I don't think forking is the problem here, it is that the name "Linux" really just means the Linux kernel, but we need to popularize some other brand name that refers to a standard desktop configuration which uses Linux as the kernel, but also has a simple and standard directory structure, standard desktop environment and some standard applications and utilities.
Most importantly Linux people need to realize that the OS to most people means the interface and not the kernel, so to say something is a Linux Desktop might have been a valid description when DOS or some flavor of Unix where still mainstream, but does not make sense when compared to MS Windows or OSX world. MS Windows and OSX refer to complete systems and not just the kernel.
And the new brand needs to start versioning so that people know which configuration they are getting. So that people know that Windows 3.1 looks one way and that Windows 95 and XP look another way. I'd suggest that using years as standard naming points is the best way to go. So, whether it is Fedora 2005 or some other name 2005 at least people will get a sense that they are working on the same thing and it provides a clear upgrade path for desktop users. The point will be to have an ongoing review of new utilities, software, kernels and configuration to determine an optimal desktop configuration and to brand it yearly. So, that some final decision is made each year (obviously with some patching framework considered)
None of this will work without the flexibility, so that if you have some customization any intaller based upon the specification should alert you that your configuration is nonstandard and upgrade everything else. So, that the default is standardization, but that customization is respected.
Just as Linus (or his cohorts) are the final arbiter of what goes into the "Linux" kernel, so too is needed someone to say that you either do it this way or don't call it 'Brandable Name'. That was the whole point of Fedora I thought, or a number of other projects. To standardize a standard configuration and application suite including a standard desktop environment.
Maybe this has already happened and I just haven't been running Linux (as a desktop) for a while. But once it does happen and people realize it, then the world will be a better place.
Not meant as a personal attack, just meant to attack your point of view.
Right now we have a lot of competing theories that conform to experimental results but all describe fundamentally different universes. I believe that far from being minor details the very foundations of physics are going to be rewritten as a result of what we might learn as we are able to experiment at higher and higher energies and look further into space. The theory that is right, might be a current theory or it might not be.
From a more perfect understanding of the way the universe works will certainly come greater innovation and refinement of our technologies.
But what is left is much much more than just detail.
interesting, but if so then what are the two other specs having the same apparent trajectory in the lower right hand part of the image in the last couple frames?
Same brightness as the other spec... reminds me of asteroids when the space ship goes of the screen on one side and then appears back on the other.
"If that is the case, then innovation isn't slowing because of societal reasons, but is slowing because there's less new shit to discover, lending credence to a simple universe."
You haven't studied physics have you?
What we have now is a very full set of speculation from which the reasoned mind might be able to pull some insights. But there are many many things whose explanation is merely superficial. It has always followed that with better explanations, greater innovation can follow. We still have some explaining to do.
ya aol already has their own dns they call it aol keywords for websites and screen names for messaging.
Problem is that fragmentation in the namespace means that resources and persons would no longer be universally accessible. Fine for a big monopoly trying to freeze out the competition. Not great for the rest of us.
Seems that Apple design philosophy has at its core always made the customer feel like they are in control over the way they use the product. That the design truly represents a philosophy that treats the computer or in this case the music player as a tool for a real person rather than treating the customer as just a "user"
The tool is never an end to itself, but rather a means to an end. Apple strictly controls the quality of the means, but leaves the end up to the customer. This is in comparison with a Windows philosophy that make the user feel that everything they do with the computer has preprogrammed outcome. I think some of this philosophy is as simple as how they originally encouraged users to organize files and programs in directories the way they wanted to rather than in some preplanned way. But I think that philosophy carries through much of the look and feel. Which could explain some of the inclination of creative people beyond just the "that's all they know" theory.
I think it can often be too simplistic to try and summarize the apple design philosophy in a single sentence, but I think that it seems Apple's goal to design the simplest possible tools for the job, which often makes for an elegant yet very functional design.
" This is precisely what is wrong, we need stagnation so that developers can actually focus on and utilize a video card. In the current state NONE of the features of current cards are being utilized properly."
Much better to do it like they did in elementary school math, gotta wait until most of the class seems to understand the current lesson before moving on to the next concept. It is only fair.
And Damnit you're right, just when I finally got this whole Cobol thing almost down, they throw this Java thing into the mix. Damnit, people, slow down!
No arguments there. The only implications of the Intel move will likely be comparable performance.
Right. The ability to compare Apple Hardware directly to... Dell Hardware Specs will mean that any consumer confusion should be dispelled. Ability to run OSX on your Apple hardware as well as XP would just mean a competitive advantage for Apple hardware, not anything difference of OS choices on other vendor's hardware.
"Actually, the ability for any society to rebel may become limited as its military grows its ability to control more firepower with less people. Just look at where drone technology is already (see http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/drones_pr.html [wired.com])"
Oh I figure with my...err i mean our drone army it will just become all the easier.
"One day, after my application for a Parental License is approved by the DOJ, I hope my kid doesn't ask me, "Daddy, what was freedom like like when you were a boy?""
Come on you are being reactionary, Freeedom will still be around well into the future. Your kids are safe. It will be just a new and improved freedom in Amerika. And with that great new freedom will come great responsibility to defend it.
To protect our freedom we will have to institute more checkpoints so that the criminals, terrorists, tax evaders and other enemies of freedom can be caught as they try to subvert our freedoms. To help us in our fight against freedom haters, universal surveillance will be possible for the first time in history. Powerful computers will be able to identify suspicious behavior so that activity records can be flaged for further study. Almost immediately any suspicious individual, could be automatically restricted to geographically defined areas, so that any potential subversive activities can be squelched and damage to freedom limited. We will call this the Cat Stevens freedom protection system, or CSFP for short. Once access to government controlled privileges such as transportation are limited, then offenders can in most cases be convinced that freedom gives you many many benefits, such as health care and access to alcohol.
Everyone has to do their fare share to defend Freedom. That means that people must work hard and contribute to freedom. In fact I imagine the economy will be replaced in whole by freedom. No longer will we be limited by the scourge of market economics where people of dubious character exchange goods, services and ideas without any concern for their contributions to freedom. But rather people of esteemed character will get credits for their efforts. We can call them freedom credits. This will allow those most deserving of our respect, for their efforts in support of freedom, to most enjoy freedom's benefits. After all those who don't work for freedom obviously don't want it.
So, rest assured. In the future your child will be much more than happy in our brave new world where freedom is the new currency and is at the very core of our society.
"This beautifully refined process of slowly chipping away at our rights always begins like this. Figure out a way to kill this right now or you never will."
Never? Abusive dictatorships get violently overthrown at some point or another, how long it takes to be corrupted into another abusive dictatorship is a measure of the wisdom of the new system.
We are just following the age old cycle: Rebel, rinse, repeat.
It has nothing to do with the patriot act... my understanding is that as long as the original search warrant wasn't obtained fraudulently then anything that is found subsequently is admissible for whatever charge is appropriate.
Actually evidence that is obtained without a warrant via patriot act provisions that is unrelated to terrorism is probably inadmissible for completely unrelated crimes. But I don't think that has been tested in court yet.
"Why should they? They ship RHEL on their systems, which costs money. I don't know what XP Pro and Win2k3 licenses go for, but I'd guess that RHEL and the equivalent Microsoft OSs are similar in price, at least as relates to cash up front."
Well, it would be nice.
Maybe not lower priced then, but at least they should provide equivalent systems at equivalent prices. The linux offerings are all either priced higher or less capable and are certainly harder to find. Much better off getting a dimension and installing linux yourself, but that isn't exactly customer friendly.
"...how about air travel in the 40's and 50's? Look at the cost and technology at the time, and compare it to modern jet technology. Sure, it started as an affluent method of travel for the "jet-setters", but now, anyone can travel by air from LA to NYC for less than $500."
And while technology has gotten better, there are now far fewer private aircraft in the Untited States. I suspect this has more to do with "safety" regulations and licensing requirements than with economics.
Truth is that aircraft and more so spacecraft provide such a tactical advantage and ability to deliver bombs to any stationay above ground target. So, any future economic growth in the industry will be restrained by the need to maintain very tight control over the airspace.
Hopefully someday everyone will realize that accepting increased risk means greater economic opportunity and we will unleash a new era of free air travel and economic prosperity.
"The only huge differences between today's society and an society that is based on Marx's communism, that I can see, are that there would be only one national bank, one state communications company, no-one could be employed by someone else for less than the value of what they produce, and the population would be more evenly spread out across the country."
Well, I think you hit the nail on the head right there. For better or for worse most, if not all, of Marx's 10 steps have already been taken by most countries regardless of whether they call themselves capitalist or communist.
But I really take issue with this though, "no-one could be employed by someone else for less than the value of what they produce". Rather it is especially in communist systems that people would be compensated for less than the value of what they produce, because the value of an individual's production must be distributed to others. Concentration of capital by giving too great a reward to any one individual would undermine the system.
Communism is all about providing to workers needs rather than their worth. Compensation based on worth is a function of the free market, which communism would use only as a tool to accomplish its goals. Rather compensation based upon worth leeds invariably to capitalism because those whose work is worth more would accumulate capital. The only increased compensation under communism that does not lead to capitalism is compensation with intangible goods such as entertainment, better quality food, and better housing (on non productive lands). Actually now to think of it, that is primarily how our society operates. There is very little concept of savings, so that there is little new capital formation.
I really think their should be very little doubt that Most nation states have enacted most of Marx's proposals in one form or another. So if you aren't happy with the status quo, then you really shouldn't look to communism for the answer.
Capitalism only operates on the fringes of society these days.
" they could be a farmer, or a rock star, or anything in between."
Sure do whatever you want as long as that type of work was valued by society. Where in a free market work is something that can be valued by just one other person. In a true communist state work must be of value to everyone. So sure even a conscript might have a say over what they are forced to do, often military conscripts get to choose from amongst various assignments. But they have to do one of those things or else something bad will be done to them.
True Communism as its supporters call for is really just a representative democracy that has central control over everything. Communism is essentially everything that the American Consitution tried to prevent because they realized that power over others corrupts, and absolute power over others would corrupt absolutely. So that no one person (even a "representative" of the proletariat) should be given that type of control over others.
"in fact Marx was wary of creating a recipe for a communist society"
Marx may have been wary of creating a recipe for a communist society, but he did:
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
In regards to the Websites, China is just doing number 6. As for my calling communism a form of universal "slavery" being an appropriate term to use I refer you to item 8. I don't think "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture" could be any better a definition of slavery. Sure it leaves to the imagination what would be done to those that refuse to obey, but Stalin and Mao certainly filled in the details there. Government power is the threat or use of physical force and violence. The only thing that seperates government from common thuggery is the consistency and justice of the system of laws which guide its actions. Forcing people to work using that power is just simple slavery.
Sure the capitalist class is little better than communism when they use their position to create conditions in society that make it impossible for people to survive except in service to them. But the point of a free market is that you choose if and what goods or services you will exchange with others. I realize that the realities of both today's world and that of 1848 mean that in effect many people have very little choice of what to do or where to live or how to get food. But Communism's answer to take individual choice away from all of us and replace it with collectivism is not an answer, rather it is just another way of creating the same old innequalities.
The right thing to do as a society is to ensure that anyone who wants to feed himself and his family can find an appropriate piece of land to farm which does not indebt him to anyone. And to maintain adequate access to common public lands for hunting and fishing. In that way, people do not have to work under an artificially imposed threat of starvation and can begin to exercise real freedom.
Authoritarianism lies at the heart of any communist state and is not incidental to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the lower right corner of the image and there are two specs that are travelling from bottom right to top left at the same angle as another spec was travelling across the field of view. One is slightly larger than the original spec that you can see in the top of the image, which is what I was assuming you were talking about. I'm just curious, if those other specs of reflected light could be other parts of the spacecraft that came off or something similar or else are just some visual artifacts of some sort.
not sure why there would be a sudden flash visable from so far away. The white that we are actually seeing is reflected light off dust that has been ejected up from the impact not from any explosion as such. Also, if the probe penetrated the surface a ways then you would not see the disintegration, but only the result. But that is all part of the experiment, to see how far the probe would penetrate and what kind of crater and how much material it would eject.
"Lack of standardization adoption for filesystem layout, software installation and configuration?"
I don't think forking is the problem here, it is that the name "Linux" really just means the Linux kernel, but we need to popularize some other brand name that refers to a standard desktop configuration which uses Linux as the kernel, but also has a simple and standard directory structure, standard desktop environment and some standard applications and utilities.
Most importantly Linux people need to realize that the OS to most people means the interface and not the kernel, so to say something is a Linux Desktop might have been a valid description when DOS or some flavor of Unix where still mainstream, but does not make sense when compared to MS Windows or OSX world. MS Windows and OSX refer to complete systems and not just the kernel.
And the new brand needs to start versioning so that people know which configuration they are getting. So that people know that Windows 3.1 looks one way and that Windows 95 and XP look another way. I'd suggest that using years as standard naming points is the best way to go. So, whether it is Fedora 2005 or some other name 2005 at least people will get a sense that they are working on the same thing and it provides a clear upgrade path for desktop users. The point will be to have an ongoing review of new utilities, software, kernels and configuration to determine an optimal desktop configuration and to brand it yearly. So, that some final decision is made each year (obviously with some patching framework considered)
None of this will work without the flexibility, so that if you have some customization any intaller based upon the specification should alert you that your configuration is nonstandard and upgrade everything else. So, that the default is standardization, but that customization is respected.
Just as Linus (or his cohorts) are the final arbiter of what goes into the "Linux" kernel, so too is needed someone to say that you either do it this way or don't call it 'Brandable Name'. That was the whole point of Fedora I thought, or a number of other projects. To standardize a standard configuration and application suite including a standard desktop environment.
Maybe this has already happened and I just haven't been running Linux (as a desktop) for a while. But once it does happen and people realize it, then the world will be a better place.
Not meant as a personal attack, just meant to attack your point of view.
Right now we have a lot of competing theories that conform to experimental results but all describe fundamentally different universes. I believe that far from being minor details the very foundations of physics are going to be rewritten as a result of what we might learn as we are able to experiment at higher and higher energies and look further into space. The theory that is right, might be a current theory or it might not be.
From a more perfect understanding of the way the universe works will certainly come greater innovation and refinement of our technologies.
But what is left is much much more than just detail.
interesting, but if so then what are the two other specs having the same apparent trajectory in the lower right hand part of the image in the last couple frames?
Same brightness as the other spec... reminds me of asteroids when the space ship goes of the screen on one side and then appears back on the other.
"If that is the case, then innovation isn't slowing because of societal reasons, but is slowing because there's less new shit to discover, lending credence to a simple universe."
You haven't studied physics have you?
What we have now is a very full set of speculation from which the reasoned mind might be able to pull some insights. But there are many many things whose explanation is merely superficial. It has always followed that with better explanations, greater innovation can follow. We still have some explaining to do.
ya aol already has their own dns they call it aol keywords for websites and screen names for messaging.
Problem is that fragmentation in the namespace means that resources and persons would no longer be universally accessible. Fine for a big monopoly trying to freeze out the competition. Not great for the rest of us.
"The Internet is a Peer-to-Peer network. "
You're damn right it is. Anyone who thinks it should be otherwise is either ignorant or a fear monger.
Seems that Apple design philosophy has at its core always made the customer feel like they are in control over the way they use the product. That the design truly represents a philosophy that treats the computer or in this case the music player as a tool for a real person rather than treating the customer as just a "user"
The tool is never an end to itself, but rather a means to an end. Apple strictly controls the quality of the means, but leaves the end up to the customer. This is in comparison with a Windows philosophy that make the user feel that everything they do with the computer has preprogrammed outcome. I think some of this philosophy is as simple as how they originally encouraged users to organize files and programs in directories the way they wanted to rather than in some preplanned way. But I think that philosophy carries through much of the look and feel. Which could explain some of the inclination of creative people beyond just the "that's all they know" theory.
I think it can often be too simplistic to try and summarize the apple design philosophy in a single sentence, but I think that it seems Apple's goal to design the simplest possible tools for the job, which often makes for an elegant yet very functional design.
" This is precisely what is wrong, we need stagnation so that developers can actually focus on and utilize a video card. In the current state NONE of the features of current cards are being utilized properly."
Much better to do it like they did in elementary school math, gotta wait until most of the class seems to understand the current lesson before moving on to the next concept. It is only fair.
And Damnit you're right, just when I finally got this whole Cobol thing almost down, they throw this Java thing into the mix. Damnit, people, slow down!
"There really are a lot of assholes online."
You would have a more broadly correct statement if you excluded the word "online".
I think causality can take care of itself.
No arguments there. The only implications of the Intel move will likely be comparable performance.
... Dell Hardware Specs will mean that any consumer confusion should be dispelled. Ability to run OSX on your Apple hardware as well as XP would just mean a competitive advantage for Apple hardware, not anything difference of OS choices on other vendor's hardware.
Right. The ability to compare Apple Hardware directly to
"Actually, the ability for any society to rebel may become limited as its military grows its ability to control more firepower with less people. Just look at where drone technology is already (see http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/drones_pr .html [wired.com])"
...err i mean our drone army it will just become all the easier.
Oh I figure with my
nah it was just credit card offers that had been opened... *they* must have been pretty dissapointed.
My PlayBoy came unopened though.
I save all my political ramblings for slashdot and over drinks.
"One day, after my application for a Parental License is approved by the DOJ, I hope my kid doesn't ask me, "Daddy, what was freedom like like when you were a boy?""
Come on you are being reactionary, Freeedom will still be around well into the future. Your kids are safe. It will be just a new and improved freedom in Amerika. And with that great new freedom will come great responsibility to defend it.
To protect our freedom we will have to institute more checkpoints so that the criminals, terrorists, tax evaders and other enemies of freedom can be caught as they try to subvert our freedoms. To help us in our fight against freedom haters, universal surveillance will be possible for the first time in history. Powerful computers will be able to identify suspicious behavior so that activity records can be flaged for further study. Almost immediately any suspicious individual, could be automatically restricted to geographically defined areas, so that any potential subversive activities can be squelched and damage to freedom limited. We will call this the Cat Stevens freedom protection system, or CSFP for short. Once access to government controlled privileges such as transportation are limited, then offenders can in most cases be convinced that freedom gives you many many benefits, such as health care and access to alcohol.
Everyone has to do their fare share to defend Freedom. That means that people must work hard and contribute to freedom. In fact I imagine the economy will be replaced in whole by freedom. No longer will we be limited by the scourge of market economics where people of dubious character exchange goods, services and ideas without any concern for their contributions to freedom. But rather people of esteemed character will get credits for their efforts. We can call them freedom credits. This will allow those most deserving of our respect, for their efforts in support of freedom, to most enjoy freedom's benefits. After all those who don't work for freedom obviously don't want it.
So, rest assured. In the future your child will be much more than happy in our brave new world where freedom is the new currency and is at the very core of our society.
I've already had several pieces of mail delivered to me suspiciously openned.
"This beautifully refined process of slowly chipping away at our rights always begins like this. Figure out a way to kill this right now or you never will."
Never? Abusive dictatorships get violently overthrown at some point or another, how long it takes to be corrupted into another abusive dictatorship is a measure of the wisdom of the new system.
We are just following the age old cycle: Rebel, rinse, repeat.
prosecution must show an intention to possess rather than just control.
It has nothing to do with the patriot act... my understanding is that as long as the original search warrant wasn't obtained fraudulently then anything that is found subsequently is admissible for whatever charge is appropriate.
Actually evidence that is obtained without a warrant via patriot act provisions that is unrelated to terrorism is probably inadmissible for completely unrelated crimes. But I don't think that has been tested in court yet.
"Why should they? They ship RHEL on their systems, which costs money. I don't know what XP Pro and Win2k3 licenses go for, but I'd guess that RHEL and the equivalent Microsoft OSs are similar in price, at least as relates to cash up front."
Well, it would be nice.
Maybe not lower priced then, but at least they should provide equivalent systems at equivalent prices. The linux offerings are all either priced higher or less capable and are certainly harder to find. Much better off getting a dimension and installing linux yourself, but that isn't exactly customer friendly.
"...how about air travel in the 40's and 50's? Look at the cost and technology at the time, and compare it to modern jet technology. Sure, it started as an affluent method of travel for the "jet-setters", but now, anyone can travel by air from LA to NYC for less than $500."
And while technology has gotten better, there are now far fewer private aircraft in the Untited States. I suspect this has more to do with "safety" regulations and licensing requirements than with economics.
Truth is that aircraft and more so spacecraft provide such a tactical advantage and ability to deliver bombs to any stationay above ground target. So, any future economic growth in the industry will be restrained by the need to maintain very tight control over the airspace.
Hopefully someday everyone will realize that accepting increased risk means greater economic opportunity and we will unleash a new era of free air travel and economic prosperity.
"You just have to go digging for it."
Yes, and they mostly offer no price advantage to buying a regular Dell with WindowsXP on it and tehn wiping it out and installing Linux.
"The only huge differences between today's society and an society that is based on Marx's communism, that I can see, are that there would be only one national bank, one state communications company, no-one could be employed by someone else for less than the value of what they produce, and the population would be more evenly spread out across the country."
Well, I think you hit the nail on the head right there. For better or for worse most, if not all, of Marx's 10 steps have already been taken by most countries regardless of whether they call themselves capitalist or communist.
But I really take issue with this though, "no-one could be employed by someone else for less than the value of what they produce". Rather it is especially in communist systems that people would be compensated for less than the value of what they produce, because the value of an individual's production must be distributed to others. Concentration of capital by giving too great a reward to any one individual would undermine the system.
Communism is all about providing to workers needs rather than their worth. Compensation based on worth is a function of the free market, which communism would use only as a tool to accomplish its goals. Rather compensation based upon worth leeds invariably to capitalism because those whose work is worth more would accumulate capital. The only increased compensation under communism that does not lead to capitalism is compensation with intangible goods such as entertainment, better quality food, and better housing (on non productive lands). Actually now to think of it, that is primarily how our society operates. There is very little concept of savings, so that there is little new capital formation.
I really think their should be very little doubt that Most nation states have enacted most of Marx's proposals in one form or another. So if you aren't happy with the status quo, then you really shouldn't look to communism for the answer.
Capitalism only operates on the fringes of society these days.
" they could be a farmer, or a rock star, or anything in between."
Sure do whatever you want as long as that type of work was valued by society. Where in a free market work is something that can be valued by just one other person. In a true communist state work must be of value to everyone. So sure even a conscript might have a say over what they are forced to do, often military conscripts get to choose from amongst various assignments. But they have to do one of those things or else something bad will be done to them.
True Communism as its supporters call for is really just a representative democracy that has central control over everything. Communism is essentially everything that the American Consitution tried to prevent because they realized that power over others corrupts, and absolute power over others would corrupt absolutely. So that no one person (even a "representative" of the proletariat) should be given that type of control over others.
"in fact Marx was wary of creating a recipe for a communist society"
Marx may have been wary of creating a recipe for a communist society, but he did:
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
-source
In regards to the Websites, China is just doing number 6. As for my calling communism a form of universal "slavery" being an appropriate term to use I refer you to item 8. I don't think "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture" could be any better a definition of slavery. Sure it leaves to the imagination what would be done to those that refuse to obey, but Stalin and Mao certainly filled in the details there. Government power is the threat or use of physical force and violence. The only thing that seperates government from common thuggery is the consistency and justice of the system of laws which guide its actions. Forcing people to work using that power is just simple slavery.
Sure the capitalist class is little better than communism when they use their position to create conditions in society that make it impossible for people to survive except in service to them. But the point of a free market is that you choose if and what goods or services you will exchange with others. I realize that the realities of both today's world and that of 1848 mean that in effect many people have very little choice of what to do or where to live or how to get food. But Communism's answer to take individual choice away from all of us and replace it with collectivism is not an answer, rather it is just another way of creating the same old innequalities.
The right thing to do as a society is to ensure that anyone who wants to feed himself and his family can find an appropriate piece of land to farm which does not indebt him to anyone. And to maintain adequate access to common public lands for hunting and fishing. In that way, people do not have to work under an artificially imposed threat of starvation and can begin to exercise real freedom.
Authoritarianism lies at the heart of any communist state and is not incidental to it.