Jon suggests that individualism is one cure to the purposelessness of the technical community, but perhaps the problem is too much individualism. The technical community lacks a common political ideology to make it a cohesive political force. Nerds (and I count myself as one)can't work together in any group larger than what it takes to make an operating system. When it comes to something like Linux this can be impressive, but it can't match to political force of the Democrats or Republicans. The technical community is too cynical to follow any charismatic leader who can successfully present and pass reasonable legistation. Bill Gates, like many in the technical community, simply chose to ignore the government. The government didn't appreciate that, and brought down the hammer. The same thing is happening with Napster. If the government is ignored it will enslave you. Perhaps if the technical community could try to find a common bond and put aside some of its famous cynicism, it could make a difference politically. But this requires a little less individualism and more teamwork.
Re:The Failure of the Intelligent Design Argument
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
You missed my point. The infinite Metaverse (only 1) is the infinte cause. Our finite universe is the finite effect. As for you argument for an intelligence that is beyond time, any intelligence we know of requires time. An intelligence that is beyond time is pure speculation.
Re:The Failure of the Intelligent Design Argument
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
So, what is more likely? An uncaused intelligent being that is beyond space and time or an uncaused infinite Metaverse that is beyond space and time? To say that an uncaused intelligent being is more likely simply because it requires just one entity as opposed to an infinite number of universes is mere semantics. I could just say I am arguing for 1 infinite Metaverse. To argue for an uncaused intelligent being, one has to argue how it can create a universe in the first place. Since I have not heard a reasonable explanation for that, I will vote for the infinite Metaverse.
The Failure of the Intelligent Design Argument
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
The failure of the intelligent design argument is this: If something as complex as the universe requires a designer, then why doesn't something as complex as God require a designer? The creationist answer to this is that God's complexity always existed. Well, if God's complexity always existed, why can't the universe (and I mean the pre-Big Bang metaverse) have always existed? The most reasonable to our unlikely existence is that there are an infinite number of universes, and if you have an infinite number of universes some are bound to have the complex physics necessary for life.
I think we must remember the purpose of Jon Katz, and that is to write summaries of the current cultural upheavals related to new technology as they happen. Sure, it's old news and obvious to many of us, but to many others it is a shock and revelation. I have to admit, I am having some trouble finishing some of Jon's recent articles, my main critism being that he is becoming redundant with the message "Old media doesn't get it." I can see why Jon felt compelled to write another such article in response to old media snickering at the troubles of some online news sources. Remember Jon's purpose, he is the chronicler of the cultural changes around us. He sits at the nexus between the old and the new, the open and the closed, the alpha and omega! . . . Excuse me, I lost a little control there. Anyway, Jon, I think it is confirmed and chronicled that old media is going to whither in the face of the new interactivity. Could you please try to explore something else for awhile?
I should read all the post before putting up my own. You hit the nail on the head. The only question is, what coorporation will want to have Metallica speaking for them? Or Nine Inch Nails? I personally think the song "Closer" would work great for a condom ad.
The only way free music (and movies and books, for that matter) will be stopped is if the entire Internet is put under strict control, which is an unlikely senario. The future for creative artist looks like this--if you want to be paid millions for your work you will first have to become popular over the net. Your popularity will get the attention of the megacorps who will pay you handsomely for your endorsements. You will, of course, have to give up some creative freedoms and you will be rightly labelled as a sell-out. For those working for the love of their art and unwilling to protitute themselves to the suits, they will have to survive on the proceeds of live performances.
It is obvious that without women there would be no civilization. Go to your nearest college campus and walk in the boys dorm. Then walk in the girls dorm. The contrast is that between barbarism and civilization. The Internet is currently a boys dorm. Loud, naked pictures on the walls, a bit smelly, lots of insults and swearing. It's also more fun than the girls dorm, but hey, barbarism was always more fun anyway. That's why Mr. Christian mutinied and took the Bounty back to Tahiti. The point I am making is that the Internet has to grow up sometime, and women will push the thing into adulthood. PS, it was polite of Jon not to mention that women are pouring online now that it is easy enough for them to do so.
Big Brother, whether the government or some OmniMegaCorp, does not care about the private lives of anybody except as affects their profits. Tax collectors and advertisers have huge databases that are getting bigger by the second with information on all of us. The real danger is if any Big Brother out there decides you are a threat to him. Look at that poor kid in Norway who wrote that DVD software for Linux. He felt the wrath of Big Brother in a big way. For another example, a man sued a supermarket when he slipped and fell. The supermarket used the information from its database to show the large quantities of alcohol the man had purchased from the store in the past to try to discredit him. We have a legitimate fear of all the Big Brothers who have all this information on us.
Let's face the facts. In ten years time anything that can be digitized will be presented free over the Internet. The only people who will be creating new music (and movies and books, for that matter) will be those doing it for the love of the art, and for the fame that comes with it. We will get our entertainment from the artist without it being filtered through megacorps. This can only improve the quality of the art available to us all, and it should be embraced.
It's a sad but true fact in the aerospace industry that when under strong management pressure, engineers will sometimes fudge data to make it look like a UUT (unit under test) passes a test in order to make a tight schedule. Especially in an environment where the messenger of bad news is the one who gets punished. I would not be surprised if thrusters failed and some engineers and/or management hid the data, hoping it wouldn't get back to them.
Slashdot Mirror
John Galt's company was consumed by Microsoft, and now he's whining to the government to build a level playing field so genius can thrive freely.
Jon suggests that individualism is one cure to the purposelessness of the technical community, but perhaps the problem is too much individualism. The technical community lacks a common political ideology to make it a cohesive political force. Nerds (and I count myself as one)can't work together in any group larger than what it takes to make an operating system. When it comes to something like Linux this can be impressive, but it can't match to political force of the Democrats or Republicans. The technical community is too cynical to follow any charismatic leader who can successfully present and pass reasonable legistation. Bill Gates, like many in the technical community, simply chose to ignore the government. The government didn't appreciate that, and brought down the hammer. The same thing is happening with Napster. If the government is ignored it will enslave you. Perhaps if the technical community could try to find a common bond and put aside some of its famous cynicism, it could make a difference politically. But this requires a little less individualism and more teamwork.
You missed my point. The infinite Metaverse (only 1) is the infinte cause. Our finite universe is the finite effect. As for you argument for an intelligence that is beyond time, any intelligence we know of requires time. An intelligence that is beyond time is pure speculation.
So, what is more likely? An uncaused intelligent being that is beyond space and time or an uncaused infinite Metaverse that is beyond space and time? To say that an uncaused intelligent being is more likely simply because it requires just one entity as opposed to an infinite number of universes is mere semantics. I could just say I am arguing for 1 infinite Metaverse. To argue for an uncaused intelligent being, one has to argue how it can create a universe in the first place. Since I have not heard a reasonable explanation for that, I will vote for the infinite Metaverse.
The failure of the intelligent design argument is this: If something as complex as the universe requires a designer, then why doesn't something as complex as God require a designer? The creationist answer to this is that God's complexity always existed. Well, if God's complexity always existed, why can't the universe (and I mean the pre-Big Bang metaverse) have always existed? The most reasonable to our unlikely existence is that there are an infinite number of universes, and if you have an infinite number of universes some are bound to have the complex physics necessary for life.
I think we must remember the purpose of Jon Katz, and that is to write summaries of the current cultural upheavals related to new technology as they happen. Sure, it's old news and obvious to many of us, but to many others it is a shock and revelation. I have to admit, I am having some trouble finishing some of Jon's recent articles, my main critism being that he is becoming redundant with the message "Old media doesn't get it." I can see why Jon felt compelled to write another such article in response to old media snickering at the troubles of some online news sources. Remember Jon's purpose, he is the chronicler of the cultural changes around us. He sits at the nexus between the old and the new, the open and the closed, the alpha and omega! . . . Excuse me, I lost a little control there. Anyway, Jon, I think it is confirmed and chronicled that old media is going to whither in the face of the new interactivity. Could you please try to explore something else for awhile?
I should read all the post before putting up my own. You hit the nail on the head. The only question is, what coorporation will want to have Metallica speaking for them? Or Nine Inch Nails? I personally think the song "Closer" would work great for a condom ad.
The only way free music (and movies and books, for that matter) will be stopped is if the entire Internet is put under strict control, which is an unlikely senario. The future for creative artist looks like this--if you want to be paid millions for your work you will first have to become popular over the net. Your popularity will get the attention of the megacorps who will pay you handsomely for your endorsements. You will, of course, have to give up some creative freedoms and you will be rightly labelled as a sell-out. For those working for the love of their art and unwilling to protitute themselves to the suits, they will have to survive on the proceeds of live performances.
It is obvious that without women there would be no civilization. Go to your nearest college campus and walk in the boys dorm. Then walk in the girls dorm. The contrast is that between barbarism and civilization. The Internet is currently a boys dorm. Loud, naked pictures on the walls, a bit smelly, lots of insults and swearing. It's also more fun than the girls dorm, but hey, barbarism was always more fun anyway. That's why Mr. Christian mutinied and took the Bounty back to Tahiti. The point I am making is that the Internet has to grow up sometime, and women will push the thing into adulthood. PS, it was polite of Jon not to mention that women are pouring online now that it is easy enough for them to do so.
Big Brother, whether the government or some OmniMegaCorp, does not care about the private lives of anybody except as affects their profits. Tax collectors and advertisers have huge databases that are getting bigger by the second with information on all of us. The real danger is if any Big Brother out there decides you are a threat to him. Look at that poor kid in Norway who wrote that DVD software for Linux. He felt the wrath of Big Brother in a big way. For another example, a man sued a supermarket when he slipped and fell. The supermarket used the information from its database to show the large quantities of alcohol the man had purchased from the store in the past to try to discredit him. We have a legitimate fear of all the Big Brothers who have all this information on us.
Let's face the facts. In ten years time anything that can be digitized will be presented free over the Internet. The only people who will be creating new music (and movies and books, for that matter) will be those doing it for the love of the art, and for the fame that comes with it. We will get our entertainment from the artist without it being filtered through megacorps. This can only improve the quality of the art available to us all, and it should be embraced.
It's a sad but true fact in the aerospace industry that when under strong management pressure, engineers will sometimes fudge data to make it look like a UUT (unit under test) passes a test in order to make a tight schedule. Especially in an environment where the messenger of bad news is the one who gets punished. I would not be surprised if thrusters failed and some engineers and/or management hid the data, hoping it wouldn't get back to them.