I believe the3 legend goes that Linus was inspired by Minix (or some limitations of it) to write Linux. I am not sure on all the facts but he wanted Minix to do somethings that it didn't and Andrew didn't want so he went and wrote his own UNIX-like OS.
well I have to say your over reacting. I wrote the first post, and I am sorry I misspelled fallacy... I have the flu, and ussually I try to speelll moorre Korectly.
But not because it predicts anything. Interresting because it allows us to discuss critical thinking. This is a perfect example of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - a VERY common logical fallicy, also known as a "coincidental correlation".
Basically the problem is people frequently see something happen and ASSUME that something they noticed, or known about the prior situation MUST be the cause. - It gets better with increasing numbers (if the reskins game had only predicted the winner once its cute, but after 15 elections it has got to be right!)
Now the reason this is such a good exercise to use for this important critical thinking skill is because most reasonable people would already know that the redskins game predicting an election is absurd.
It seems to me if society has generated the money to care for people than why not? Why choose this so-called "open market" system that depends on a downtrodden poor to function? It just doesn't make sense for a society to choose a zero-sum style of economy to me.
Don't get me wrong I am all for gun rights, abortion right, drug legalisation, and tons of other libertarian issues. Where I differ is in the belief that as wealth and technology increases we can use it to increase what we consider the basic standard rights for all. We started with none, and now we have speech, religion, due process, etc... why not use our enormous technological and financial wealth to aid healthcare?
All I am saying is this is clearly a fundamental philosophical difference. AndI allowed for that in my original post, basically you can't compare the preparedness of Communism and Libertarianism if they both have different definitions for "preparedness" and different ideas of the "best" and "worst" case. Doesn't mean you can't compare them, its just silly to say one is realistic and one is idealism when your using different "scales"
or ended up in prison. or died in a gutter. do you think that homelessness is a modern phenomenon? very recently these "dregs" and under classes were relegated to slavery, indentured servitude and other abuses.
what about people that don't want to rely on a church? Do I have to now believe someones mythology to eat? What happens when the breadwinner is the one who loses his job? Why not just use the overwelming weealth of society to help every one? those who have the money to pay benifit from the workforce, and services (security, etc) provided by society, and those that don't get to eat.
"We should eliminate the entire social welfare system."... "Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap."
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. Libertarians expect people who have spent hundreds of years not giving a fuck about each other to pick up the slack.
You clearly didn't read the rest of my post. I was contraasting the previous posters implied view of libertarianism, with the reality. And I am basing my view of it on the little of Ayn Rand I could stomach, the few times I've chatted with "libertarians" and the libertarians party platform from this year.
You have it backwards. Libertarians assume that society will still work if everyone is left to fend for himself. They assume that private citizens will suddenly, after thousands of years of not giving a fuck, start seriously supporting the poor, etc...
Communism (socialism ?) is designed from the start to support all regardless of the scenario. It is designed for the worst case scenario, it takes care of the poor, of the underprivledged, and the needy. Libertarianism turns a blind eye and assumes these things will disappear.
I understand that lack of a historical example of a "communist" state that wasn't totally corrupted by fascist totalitarianism, but as you say there is no real historical example of a libertarian state either.
The fact is libertarianism is a far more idealistic view, unless of course you believe it because you are powerful and want the benifits of being powerful in a society like that (not having to help support the rest of society) - in that case I guess more power to you. Now if you actually philosophically believe that its not your responsibility to help out others, and society shouldn't do it, then I suppose libertarianism isn't idealistic, but expecting it to help out society as a whole is whoafully so.
Well I agree with your advice, and I have a windows 98 box at home so my girlfriend can run some programs she wants (Sims 2) - but I am a GNU/Linux user and I don't want to hassle with the interface of another OS for one app. I think its easier to settle for a slightly less powerful (but improving) Linux app, than to have to install Windows and deal with everything I am unfamiliar with it, and of course find annoying. I am even becoming bothered by the one Windows machine I have due to the increasing requirement for XP, which will simply push me away for that all together. Also I do not begrudge someone for saying they don't want to install Linux for one thing, or another. If they like Windows, or MacOS or BSD, or whatever then I understand. I used to use Windows exclusively (back in the 95 days) and now that I run Debian exclusivley (with GNOME) I am perfectly happy, and dont want to have to switch to a now unfamiliar interface.
- See that I managed to defend only using Debian without bringing IP politics into it.
I swear to this day if someone were to walk up to me and say "video game" and ask me to describe the image I get, its from the Legend of Zelda. This game was probably the only one I've ever played that completely surpased all of the hype I had for it when it was released. - Which is odd because the ads were absurd. I really think of it as the "Citizen Kane" of video games, it was complete in almost every way, there is simply nothing to complain about it.
Even now when it should be horribly dated, and when I can remember every single secret I can turn it on and have a blast playing it.
Too bad all the source sites I've seen for this appear to be fake and its a challenge posted on RTMark . Would have been an interresting story otherwise, myself not being a Bush supporter:)
Can someone explain to me why we swapped the Red/Blue designations after the 1996 election? Or was the 1996 election the first with Red Republicans and Blue Dems? either way why did this happen? People talk Red/Blue like its an eternal struggle thats been that way for decades, it wasn't too long ago that Red states were democratic states, and blue states were republican. Why the odd, yet total shift in everyones designations?
I don't mean to offend anyone, but I always find it odd when I see things on how important KDE is to 'open source' because I exclusively run Free operating systems (mostly Debian) and don't have a single KDE library or app installed on any computer.
Sometimes I just forget it exists:) - This isn't meant as an insult to KDE, its really I guess an homage to Free Software (Imagine finding a windows user that does have IE, or Explorer installed!)
I think that it might have to do with the fact that anyone who recognizes the name "Real" associates it with *really* crappy quality streaming audio/video. I know you may say that was caused but slow connections, and the rm has improved over the years, they problem is their current rm player barely works.
so you either think "Real:= looks/sounds like crap" or "Real:= runs like crap" - its not exactly a win-win for them:)
Do you remember the Net prior to HTTP and the web? if so you can easily see why "the web" took off like it did.
You need to develop a new protocol/app that provides something people actually want without added complexity and you'll replace the web as quickly as the web replaced usenet/gopher/ftp/irc (I know it didn't replace all of those things but for the majority of uses and people it did to some degree render them obsolete)
Of course if your new system was really a wanted thing and was open enough to become a world wide standard someone would probably just patch it into a browser in someway as to make it accessible from current websites the way flash is accessable from HTML, and then not only would people call your thing "the web" anyway they would only be using the bare minimum to get the new *feature* they wanted.
The Web took off because it worked. You couldn't really patch images and hyperlinks onto FTP the way you can seemlessly access email/usenet/(*insert here*) over HTTP with the proper server. just wouldn't work.
I can see how this is good from both sides. Obviously existing IP practice and whatnot makes this very bad, But its also a little bit of consumer freedom, akin to telephone number portability.
Maybe someone forgot to explain to the judge how the system works? or maybe he just didn't care based on this case?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the3 legend goes that Linus was inspired by Minix (or some limitations of it) to write Linux. I am not sure on all the facts but he wanted Minix to do somethings that it didn't and Andrew didn't want so he went and wrote his own UNIX-like OS.
well I have to say your over reacting. I wrote the first post, and I am sorry I misspelled fallacy... I have the flu, and ussually I try to speelll moorre Korectly.
But not because it predicts anything. Interresting because it allows us to discuss critical thinking. This is a perfect example of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - a VERY common logical fallicy, also known as a "coincidental correlation".
Basically the problem is people frequently see something happen and ASSUME that something they noticed, or known about the prior situation MUST be the cause. - It gets better with increasing numbers (if the reskins game had only predicted the winner once its cute, but after 15 elections it has got to be right!)
Now the reason this is such a good exercise to use for this important critical thinking skill is because most reasonable people would already know that the redskins game predicting an election is absurd.
It seems to me if society has generated the money to care for people than why not? Why choose this so-called "open market" system that depends on a downtrodden poor to function? It just doesn't make sense for a society to choose a zero-sum style of economy to me.
Don't get me wrong I am all for gun rights, abortion right, drug legalisation, and tons of other libertarian issues. Where I differ is in the belief that as wealth and technology increases we can use it to increase what we consider the basic standard rights for all. We started with none, and now we have speech, religion, due process, etc... why not use our enormous technological and financial wealth to aid healthcare?
why? explain why it is wrong.
All I am saying is this is clearly a fundamental philosophical difference. AndI allowed for that in my original post, basically you can't compare the preparedness of Communism and Libertarianism if they both have different definitions for "preparedness" and different ideas of the "best" and "worst" case. Doesn't mean you can't compare them, its just silly to say one is realistic and one is idealism when your using different "scales"
or ended up in prison. or died in a gutter. do you think that homelessness is a modern phenomenon? very recently these "dregs" and under classes were relegated to slavery, indentured servitude and other abuses.
what about people that don't want to rely on a church? Do I have to now believe someones mythology to eat? What happens when the breadwinner is the one who loses his job? Why not just use the overwelming weealth of society to help every one? those who have the money to pay benifit from the workforce, and services (security, etc) provided by society, and those that don't get to eat.
seems like simple human decency to me.
oh and I looked it up, from the party platform:
... "Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap."
"We should eliminate the entire social welfare system."
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. Libertarians expect people who have spent hundreds of years not giving a fuck about each other to pick up the slack.
You clearly didn't read the rest of my post.
I was contraasting the previous posters implied view of libertarianism, with the reality. And I am basing my view of it on the little of Ayn Rand I could stomach, the few times I've chatted with "libertarians" and the libertarians party platform from this year.
You have it backwards. Libertarians assume that society will still work if everyone is left to fend for himself. They assume that private citizens will suddenly, after thousands of years of not giving a fuck, start seriously supporting the poor, etc...
Communism (socialism ?) is designed from the start to support all regardless of the scenario. It is designed for the worst case scenario, it takes care of the poor, of the underprivledged, and the needy. Libertarianism turns a blind eye and assumes these things will disappear.
I understand that lack of a historical example of a "communist" state that wasn't totally corrupted by fascist totalitarianism, but as you say there is no real historical example of a libertarian state either.
The fact is libertarianism is a far more idealistic view, unless of course you believe it because you are powerful and want the benifits of being powerful in a society like that (not having to help support the rest of society) - in that case I guess more power to you. Now if you actually philosophically believe that its not your responsibility to help out others, and society shouldn't do it, then I suppose libertarianism isn't idealistic, but expecting it to help out society as a whole is whoafully so.
I have a question:
If we could afford all that as a society, then why not?
Well I agree with your advice, and I have a windows 98 box at home so my girlfriend can run some programs she wants (Sims 2) - but I am a GNU/Linux user and I don't want to hassle with the interface of another OS for one app. I think its easier to settle for a slightly less powerful (but improving) Linux app, than to have to install Windows and deal with everything I am unfamiliar with it, and of course find annoying. I am even becoming bothered by the one Windows machine I have due to the increasing requirement for XP, which will simply push me away for that all together. Also I do not begrudge someone for saying they don't want to install Linux for one thing, or another. If they like Windows, or MacOS or BSD, or whatever then I understand. I used to use Windows exclusively (back in the 95 days) and now that I run Debian exclusivley (with GNOME) I am perfectly happy, and dont want to have to switch to a now unfamiliar interface.
- See that I managed to defend only using Debian without bringing IP politics into it.
Someone has never heard of "The History Of Middle Earth Volume 69"!
I swear to this day if someone were to walk up to me and say "video game" and ask me to describe the image I get, its from the Legend of Zelda. This game was probably the only one I've ever played that completely surpased all of the hype I had for it when it was released. - Which is odd because the ads were absurd. I really think of it as the "Citizen Kane" of video games, it was complete in almost every way, there is simply nothing to complain about it.
Even now when it should be horribly dated, and when I can remember every single secret I can turn it on and have a blast playing it.
Too bad all the source sites I've seen for this appear to be fake and its a challenge posted on RTMark . Would have been an interresting story otherwise, myself not being a Bush supporter :)
No but I want to smack people that say "fak" instead of "F" "A" "Q"... I always think "When will people learn?"
Can someone explain to me why we swapped the Red/Blue designations after the 1996 election? Or was the 1996 election the first with Red Republicans and Blue Dems? either way why did this happen? People talk Red/Blue like its an eternal struggle thats been that way for decades, it wasn't too long ago that Red states were democratic states, and blue states were republican. Why the odd, yet total shift in everyones designations?
I dont know if your aware of this, but as far as a "Producers" movie goes, he already pulled it off.
The musical is based on the original film.
I am posting this from a Pentium II 233, with 128 MB of RAM, and I've been running GNOME exclusively since 2.0 was released. works fine...
oh and the systen next to me is a Celeron 466 with 128MB of RAM, I like that one just fine as well.
I don't mean to offend anyone, but I always find it odd when I see things on how important KDE is to 'open source' because I exclusively run Free operating systems (mostly Debian) and don't have a single KDE library or app installed on any computer.
:) - This isn't meant as an insult to KDE, its really I guess an homage to Free Software (Imagine finding a windows user that does have IE, or Explorer installed!)
Sometimes I just forget it exists
I think that it might have to do with the fact that anyone who recognizes the name "Real" associates it with *really* crappy quality streaming audio/video. I know you may say that was caused but slow connections, and the rm has improved over the years, they problem is their current rm player barely works.
:= looks/sounds like crap" or "Real := runs like crap" - its not exactly a win-win for them :)
so you either think "Real
That way we can use "Internet" and it has the feeling of a concrete proper noun, rather than "the Internet" / "the internet" inviting confussion.
bad example. With a newer car you would gain safety and economy, and reduce polution.
With a newer computer *if* the old one does what you need you get virtually nothing.
Do you remember the Net prior to HTTP and the web? if so you can easily see why "the web" took off like it did.
You need to develop a new protocol/app that provides something people actually want without added complexity and you'll replace the web as quickly as the web replaced usenet/gopher/ftp/irc (I know it didn't replace all of those things but for the majority of uses and people it did to some degree render them obsolete)
Of course if your new system was really a wanted thing and was open enough to become a world wide standard someone would probably just patch it into a browser in someway as to make it accessible from current websites the way flash is accessable from HTML, and then not only would people call your thing "the web" anyway they would only be using the bare minimum to get the new *feature* they wanted.
The Web took off because it worked. You couldn't really patch images and hyperlinks onto FTP the way you can seemlessly access email/usenet/(*insert here*) over HTTP with the proper server. just wouldn't work.
I can see how this is good from both sides. Obviously existing IP practice and whatnot makes this very bad, But its also a little bit of consumer freedom, akin to telephone number portability.
Maybe someone forgot to explain to the judge how the system works? or maybe he just didn't care based on this case?
At first I assumed iTMS was a rail company laying a lot of new track... :)