You as a U.S. citizen are already a member of the Government. You may not be an elected executive or legislative representative, but by simply being a member of this society, you are a member of the Government. Whether or not you exercise your abilities is entirely different. If you don't, then don't be surprised if laws, policies, and decisions that effect a number of people, don't reflect what you want. This is something that many people attempt to ignore, as they whine about some nonexistant repressive institution.
Amongst other things that I mentioned, yes, becoming a Senator is a fairly good way of making sure that policies reflect your beliefs. Simply voting is also another way, but if you feel no one represents you directly, then doing it yourself is the way to go. What you would personally do as an elected official, I can't say, but there's really only minor power to be had as one of many U.S. Senators.
You do need to get involved, otherwise you can't expect your world around you to represent your ideals. If no one hears your great ideas, no one is going to support them.
I'm not sure what sort of power you think any one member of the Government has over you, either. Are you suggesting a member of the FTC, or perhaps a school board member, can somehow control every action in your life? Perhaps you think your mayor can tell you what color socks you should wear, or a town clerk can tell you how to cut your hair?
You may not be aware of this, but the Government's actions are constrained by law and the courts. The law will reflect what ever body of people actively attempts to shape it, and then the courts will decide if it's appropriate. So the Government doesn't have any supreme control over you. You can make a difference, but certainly not by running from "big brother."
It's amusing that you hold more faith in corporations, which are made in an even more amusing form of feudalism. If a corporation is dumping toxic waste in your river, can you go to them and vote to have them stop? No, of course not. Since you've removed the Government, you either deal with it, or leave. If you work for a business, can you vote for a longer lunch break? Can you vote on what you want to work on, as an employee? No, your options are deal with it, or leave. Yeah, power to the corporations!
You have no choices with corporations, other then the ones they choose to give you. As a private non-democratic institution, you have no say in their actions. Your options for controlling them is law (which you don't like), money (and there's a million more people to sell to), and going somewhere else.
With Government, if you don't like something, you can change it. You don't want to pay social security? Get off your ass and tell your elected representative. Don't like him? Run yourself, or support someone you do like.
Actually, the Government (federal and state) both enact many laws, levy many taxes, and have sued tobacco companies. They're also the people the force the tobacco companies to put those nifty little warnings on tobacco products, informing the consumer that they pose a health hazard.
There're many reasons why the Government doesn't just abolish tobacco altogether, including the large number of farmers that make their living growing tobacco for the corporations, the millions of people that smoke and chew tobacco products, and of course the corporations that supply an economy for their states.
A good number of politicians do, in fact, think they are doing the right thing. The pay for being a representative doesn't compare with being a doctor, lawyer, scientist, several different types of engineer, or corporate executive. The amount of power in being a representative, especially in the House, is also fairly small, given the distribution. This isn't too say that none of them are in the pockets of corporations, but to suggest that all politicians are somehow corporate whores is nonsense. We'd have no where near as pleasent a society, if all they did was bow down to multinational corporations.
The Government is good for many things, you just need to get involved. You'd be surprised how much more your Government represents you, when you start voting, lobbying, attending town counsel meetings, going to school board meetings, running for local/state/federal office, etc.
Certainly for the people, but also *by* the people
I tend to agree that it's a bit irresponsible on their part, but the impact may very well be minimal, or even nonexistant.
It's a bit like seeing someone in a crowded room cough, and start yelling "That man has an air-born infectious disease!" Perhaps the biggest difference, though, is Slashdot isn't going to get trampled by a horde of people running for the exit. =)
I hope this was made in jest, and not a serious cry for prices of memory to increase, so as to keep people from using Windows.
This may or may not come as a surprise, but not everyone is the same. We've all different interests and needs, and Windows certainly does fill a need (perhaps several) for people. And though it may not suit your needs, and you may disagree with the practices of its manufacturer, it's still a product that people use for work, education, entertainment, and several other meaningful human activities.
It seems that having prices go up for RAM, enough so that Windows users can't afford a computer, can only hurt average people. People that want a computer for their child to do homework, people that want a computer for entertainment, and people that own small businesses that want a computer to help them keep track of finances, or for their employees to work on. In short, people that can benefit from the "standard" that Windows offers them.
I find it a bit cruel to wish a small business owner, educator, or parent ill, simply because they'd use what worked for them.
But I imagine you were only joking, so perhaps this post is a bit irrelevant. I apologize for wasting your time, if it was.
Ahh yes, our perfect Constitution. The same infallible document created by the same infallible founding fathers that owned slaves, and didn't see women as their equals.
People need to realize that the needs of society expand as time goes on. You can't go back to the glorious days of the early Constitution, and I wouldn't want to.
Copyright is acceptable, what's unacceptable is the eternal extension it will see, because instead of lobbying or running for office, its opponents simply decide to ignore it.
Patents, though originally created for the good of the inventor, are indeed worthless.
Of course they're poor. You wouldn't see organizations attempting to use their money to help these countries develop, if they had piles of U.S. dollars.
However, attempting to construct businesses that can't be maintained by the country, isn't going to do it any good.
More than money, what these countries need is a self-sustaining infrastructure. You can get money as a side-effect, but the infrastructure needs to be built.
A much better way for this to be built, is for organizations to construct, for free, this infrastructure. Otherwise these countries become tied to the World Bank, and eventually further exploitation by the U.S. corporations. Fun stuff, really.
Once the infrastructure is in place, the populations can be educated in various things, such as literacy, mathematics, the sciences, engineering, medicine, good farming techniques, etc.
To attempt to thoughtlessly industrialize a nation, is somewhat moronic. To expect that you can create an economy with ignorant people is naive. If you attempt to industrialize a nation, without educating the masses, the country is doomed to a painful developmental process, just like the U.S. and the Britain went through. Massive exploitation of people by a small ruling class. If this is what you wish for developing nations, then I'm saddened.
What sort of economy can one expect from a horde of ignorant workers? One based upon mindless factory work, such as China. The scenario is more or less a large U.S. corporation setting up its construction in a developing country with poor, ignorant people, and using lax social laws to exploit them heartlessly.
After all, you can't expect a country of ignorant people to somehow be able to compete against the factory workers of multinational corporations. And without quality education, they domain of employment is limited.
Now of course you'll suggest that somehow these same ignorant hordes can construct an e-commerce business that will be able to rival all of the countless other e-commerce businesses, when they exist in a country that "has no resources."
You site quite heavily into the construction of the U.S. economy. Mentioning slaves, ignorant factory workers, and poor education. Certainly the U.S. has a deplorable history, and if it's your belief that through repracticing the same injustices against the people of third world nations will somehow construct an equal setting, then I urge you to think again.
The world was certainly a much different place while the U.S. was industrializing, enslaving, and exploiting its workers. And though while no one is there to enslave and exploit you, you can certainly build quite an economy (for a small number of people, at least), it's certainly different when there is an entrenched giant exploiter waiting to utilize your weak country for its cheap labor.
If you settle for attempting to produce just a worker class of citizen, while a small number of people attempt some form of modern business, your country will just be ripe for exploitation by the U.S. corporations.
If organizations were to hand-hold a developing nation while it developed, the nation would be developed in parallel, and stand a better chance of being able to stand on its own. It's hard to exploit a nation of educated people, fully involved in their Government, and capable of designing their own technologies and economies. What is really need, is large scale non-profit investment.
The U.S., while an extremely rich country, is also a country of great inequality. A very small amount of the population is in control of the majority of our GDP. We've a long history of exploitation of workers by this small population, and a long history of exporting this exploitation to other countries, as our citizenry becomes increasingly more resistant to domination.
And most importantly, the U.S. is still broken. The education system is hardly the worst in the world, but is certainly in need of development. Our higher education facilities are amongst the best in the world, while our secondary schools range from excellent to poor, depending on population density. You don't think that those large amounts of poorly educated people in high population density regions are experiencing the benefits of our "great economy," do you? Try living in the poor part of a U.S. city, and tell me you want to encourage the same sort of exploitation that the U.S. used to get where it is today, because you dream that one day that people have that to look forward to.
There is certainly room for computer education in developing nations, but there's also limited good, at this time, that just wasting money on setting up a few computer businesses can do. The resources would be better spent advancing their schools, and not wasting money on businesses that will just fail, at best.
I agree that it's a shame people seem to take RMS's commentary as somehow representing all of those that develop and support free software. All too often dotters troll attacking RMS's religion, and amusingly enough people write serious articles painting all of the free software community as loons, using his words.
Another problem is that those that promote an open attitude for free software (like ESR) seem to be crazy libertarians. Free market zealots don't impress or represent me anymore than RMS does.
I would just like to commend you for this. All too often U.S. citizens tend to take for granted their particular lifestyle, and forget that a large portion of our population isn't very well off.
You're doing a noble thing, and I can only hope that there're many other people equally concerned with the well being of neighbors.
Up to date information about AIDS is useless if you don't have scientists to apply that information.
There is no end to the need of this infrastructure in a developing nation. And infrastructure is all we should build in these nations, not businesses.
The money would be better spent helping them educate their children, than helping them construct 'net cafes, internet service providers, or anything else. Even constructing general telecommunications equipment is more important, than specifically offering them the internet.
In Ghana they'd be better off donating computers to the few quality sources of education, than anything else. And perhaps taking positions in their schools to help teach math, science, etc.
You can't run before you can walk, and that's certainly what it sounds like.
To successfully feed a large population, you need to have a lot of infrastructure in place. This infrastructure, which leads to successful and prolonged feeding of the people, is the same infrastructure that allows people to study that new-fangled "fire thing."
Creating an internet cafe in a country where they don't even know what an eigenvector or a cell is, isn't going to help them much. So a priority above an internet cafe is obviously an effective means of education. And to provide an effective means of education, you need institutions to aid in mass education. And to build these institutions you need to be able to process stone, metal, wood, etc effectively. You also need to construct environmentally safe sources of power, and so on and so on.
You can't just give people that can't afford vacinations five 386es, and expect them to somehow build an economy on it.
While we're suggesting population control, perhaps U.S. citizens should stop having children. This way our flooded education system can have a chance to correctly process our urban children, we can lower our percentage of the world's pollutants, lower our percentage of usage of the entire planet's fossil fuel supply, curb our destruction of our lakes, streams, and oceans, and any number of other things we do wrong. It would also be beneficial if a few hundred thousand patriots would commit suicide, especially executives of multinational corporations. This should cut down on the exploitation of the world's people by a great amount.
On a serious note, this isn't the sort of infrastructure developing nations need. They need real schools, good roads, good plumbing infrastructure, environmentally friendly means of producing electricity, hospitals, and effective agriculture.
Learning how to use a computer isn't going to help them make better roads, if they don't know math enough to seriously study physics.
Perhaps you should think about what the individual was saying for a moment. Obviously he's stating that he will not donate time or money to this program. I don't him one stating that he does in any way pay for this rather innane program.
You could, in fact, feed every single human being on this planet. It wouldn't even take a remotely large faction of total land area of the planet. The problem lies in distribution, whether it be how to get it there, or supporting (financially) the number of people needed to supply food for the rest of the world.
There will always be poor people, while any one person thinks that he is somehow entitled to as much of everything as he can possibley get, and that the condition of everyone else is irrelevant.
5% of the population having 80% of the world's wealth is a rather good indicator that our system "doesn't work."
There has been no real institution of communism, so whether it would work or not is hard to say. And before you call China or the U.S.S.R communists, I think you should read some Marx. Totalitarian regimes don't a communist make.
It's impossible to institute mass education without creating infrastructure, so I'm not certain his theory is worth much.
Not to mention that there's no shortage of things for an educated individual to do, in a developing nation, so I can't see them revolting out of boredom. If however they're being abused by their Government, perhaps revolting isn't such a bad thing.
I'd tend to think it's a bit stupid, since an Internet Cafe is of little use to a developing nation.
Before we waste our time "educating" the people of a developing nation on how to use ICQ, or even how to type, perhaps helping them to construct meaningul systems of formal education is in order.
As for feeding the poor, that's a different can of beans all together. If you expect people to become self-sufficient, and not need continuous supplies of food, then you need to develop infrastructure for them. This includes things like:
Creating real systems of education, like public schools for children and adults.
Creating specific schools for training teachers, so they can then train future generations of children.
Donating machinery for processing wood, stone, and various metals. It's hard to build a school without mills, saws, hammers, etc. And when you've a small economy (if any) it's almost impossible to buy these things. Of course we always have the World Bank to lend them money, so if they ever manage to construct an economy, U.S. corporations can setup shop in their country, and begin exploiting their population for cheap labor and eventually a new source of capital.
Donating farm equipment, like tractors and plows. Educating the farmers on the use of compost for fertilizers.
Donating supplies of genetically engineered seeds for planting, to increase yields. Then educate the farmers on sustaining their system, to keep from needing further large sources of seed.
Creating roads, and teaching them how to construct road systems that last many years.
Creating supplies of safe drinking water, and educating them in various plumbing and filtering techniques.
etc etc etc
There's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be given, and education on how to preserve, and construct the infrastructure. I can't see any developing nation putting an internet cafe above quality education for its young. And though you may consider using computers as "quality education," I think that they could use mathematics, literacy, physics, biology, chemistry, medicine, etc a lot more.
What developing nations don't need:
Religous groups attempting to "convert" them, in exchange for vacinations and food.
Corporations "investing" in them, for later exploitation.
> *Everyone* acts and thinks this way, if the > laws actually reflected what was right and was > wrong, then things would be different, but they > don't. Assuming all Napster users are hurtful > pirates really doesn't jive
There is no absolute right or wrong, I'm afraid. It's not the point of law to reflect an absolute right or wrong, but rather to maintain an average sense of order and equality amongst the citizens.
You may feel perfectly justified in breaking traffic laws on a highway, but would you suggest that it's acceptable to speed in a residential zone? It's all fine and dandy, until someone's child or pet is turned into a pancake, because someone thought a Children at Play sign meant accelerate to warp three.
I would agree that traffic laws regarding highway velocity may be unfair, yet to say it's alright to disregard traffic laws if you feel like it, is a short-sighted and lazy approach to fixing your problems. You feel like speeding on the highway, and someone else feels like speeding through a residential area. Neither of you thinks you're going to hurt anyone, and that the law is unjust, but you must certainly see why it's not a good idea to "just do it."
No, a better approach is for people to abide by these laws, regardless of their personal feelings, and to work to change the laws they feel are unjust. It's much easier to just attempt to ignore laws, isn't it? That doesn't get anything done, either. So a lot of good that mentality does.
> People will always put their morality in front > of the law and I can't blame them as the law > usually serves the power-strictures, not the > citizen. Breaking laws that you think are unfair > and limit your freedoms is perfectly > healthy, if we were all law-loving automatons
No, people put their id in front of the law, not their morality. This is hardly healthy. The law is there to protect you, your family, and your friends. If you don't participate in it, don't be surprised if it doesn't reflect your ideals and freedoms. Our laws are certainly broken in many places, but blindly following impulses, instead of attempting to change minds and laws doesn't help one's cause any. It just feeds the id.
> we'd still be in the midst of slave owners, > theocracies, and illiterate life-long sweatshop > workers.
It's law that set slaves free, and it's the work of amancipationists and civil rights activists that set our minds free of slavery. They certainly violated many laws in the process of freeing slaves, but simply shipping slaves to Canada didn't help the populations of slaves still working the fields. I'd also venture that fighting civil rights injustices is certainly much different than changing traffic laws.
We also still do have life-long "sweatshop" workers. Why? Because either people violate the law and import and use illegal immigrants for labor, or depending on your definition of sweatshop (I think most factory work should fall under that term, since it's so horrible) it's still perfectly legal to provide less than acceptable working conditions for factory workers.
The U.S. is hardly a paragon in civil rights, since id-driven people often put themselves before others. Only through changing minds and changing laws will it get better, though. The next big thing will probably be equality for homosexuals, or perhaps finishing off giving women equality. Then perhaps we can work on the equality of the working class. Sigh. So many things to fix.
> If you really want to convince the MP3 trading > community to stop what they're doing you have to > prove that the current copyright laws are more > helpful than hurtful and that the industry > doesn't artificially inflate their prices. Good > luck with those two.
I'm certain that no one will convince impulsive people, that have little or no respect for others' rights, that they shouldn't "trade" others' work.
It also doesn't matter if the recording industry "artificially inflates" their prices. Simply put, it's their products, and they have the right to attempt to charge whatever they feel they're worth. You don't think that car you bought cost the manufacturer $20k, do you? Everyone deserves to earn a living.
If you, however, are unhappy with the cost or unfreely redistributable nature of most music, I urge you to stop participating in the system entirely, and to create and promote freely redistributable music. Instead of attempting to steal from recording industry, help construct a free music community. I certainly think it's the more noble thing to do. And in the end you get to know you helped set peoples' minds free.
As an objective observer, I wouldn't consider your reply to him to be overly cordial, either. Perhaps, then, you're not an overly productive developer? No, that makes little sense, and I'm sure you do a fine job. It's not even all that important, since not everyone is a programmer, anyway.
There seems to exist a vocal faction of any paticular "religion," that feels it must justify and flaunt their percieved superiority. Whether it's one car fanatic telling the other his Ford/Chevrolet/Dodge is inferior to XYZ, or one person claiming Britney Spears is not "real" music, simply because they don't like it.
Yes, it may be unfortunate. It certainly does get in the way of my dreams of a social ideal, but it's an inescapable reality. There will be KDE vs. GNOME flame wars for as long as either "side" has a userbase, simply because they both exist to fill the same space, and different people like different things.
It's also not really our place to attempt to keep people from attempting to champion whatever, since it's really a matter of harmless free speech. If we resent their behavior, and really want to limit their percieved damage to our realm, then we simply do not add any fuel to their fire.
So my advice to you, since you seem to hold an ideal of a cooperative community, is to not attempt to subjugate people carrying flame throwers. I think, though I may be wrong, that it only tarnishes your dream.
I'm by no means an expert, but I'm not certain if colonizing the moon is worth it.
The amount of gravity on the moon is fairly weak, so the human body would degenerate significantly while living on it. It wouldn't be as bad as living on Mir for years, but it's still not good.
It is exposed to a lot of radiation, since it has no atmosphere. This would mean you'd more or less have to live in a thick stone building, which isn't the romantic bubble dome lifestyle Star Trek would have one think.
I don't believe there's much in terms of resources one could use to fabricate most of the requirements of life. So you'd need frequent shuttle trips to bring supplies. Of course one could argue that once you've left the earth, traveling from orbit to the moon isn't overly costly. For a long term settlement, though, you'd want a bit more ease.
Though Mars has about 1/3 the gravity of earth, it's definitely an improvement over the moon. It's slightly better in terms of resources, since there's frozen water (caps, permafrost,...).
Of course if there're problems, it's also a lot farther away. Still, I'd rather shoot for a real planet, and leave the moon alone.
Which would mean the Mach microkernel, since 3.0 was the first "real" microkernel.
Apple simply sticks a BSD layer in the kernel address space (which violates microkernel principles), but they still use the Mach microkernel, and the BSD layer isn't inseperable per se, it's just they use it to provide most of the OS functionality. All in all, a somewhat short-sighted design.
The story doesn't really matter, since Jupiter isn't going to "blow up." Jupiter doesn't have enough mass to become a star, and if it were to become one, I find it hard to believe that its satelites wouldn't be enveloped.
In terms of the books I stand corrected, but I was under the impression we were talking about reality.
Slashdot Mirror
You as a U.S. citizen are already a member of the Government. You may not be an elected executive or legislative representative, but by simply being a member of this society, you are a member of the Government.
Whether or not you exercise your abilities is entirely different. If you don't, then don't be surprised if laws, policies, and decisions that effect a number of people, don't reflect what you want. This is something that many people attempt to ignore, as they whine about some nonexistant repressive institution.
Amongst other things that I mentioned, yes, becoming a Senator is a fairly good way of making sure that policies reflect your beliefs. Simply voting is also another way, but if you feel no one represents you directly, then doing it yourself is the way to go.
What you would personally do as an elected official, I can't say, but there's really only minor power to be had as one of many U.S. Senators.
You do need to get involved, otherwise you can't expect your world around you to represent your ideals. If no one hears your great ideas, no one is going to support them.
I'm not sure what sort of power you think any one member of the Government has over you, either. Are you suggesting a member of the FTC, or perhaps a school board member, can somehow control every action in your life? Perhaps you think your mayor can tell you what color socks you should wear, or a town clerk can tell you how to cut your hair?
You may not be aware of this, but the Government's actions are constrained by law and the courts. The law will reflect what ever body of people actively attempts to shape it, and then the courts will decide if it's appropriate. So the Government doesn't have any supreme control over you.
You can make a difference, but certainly not by running from "big brother."
It's amusing that you hold more faith in corporations, which are made in an even more amusing form of feudalism.
If a corporation is dumping toxic waste in your river, can you go to them and vote to have them stop? No, of course not. Since you've removed the Government, you either deal with it, or leave.
If you work for a business, can you vote for a longer lunch break? Can you vote on what you want to work on, as an employee? No, your options are deal with it, or leave. Yeah, power to the corporations!
You have no choices with corporations, other then the ones they choose to give you. As a private non-democratic institution, you have no say in their actions. Your options for controlling them is law (which you don't like), money (and there's a million more people to sell to), and going somewhere else.
With Government, if you don't like something, you can change it. You don't want to pay social security? Get off your ass and tell your elected representative. Don't like him? Run yourself, or support someone you do like.
Actually, the Government (federal and state) both enact many laws, levy many taxes, and have sued tobacco companies. They're also the people the force the tobacco companies to put those nifty little warnings on tobacco products, informing the consumer that they pose a health hazard.
There're many reasons why the Government doesn't just abolish tobacco altogether, including the large number of farmers that make their living growing tobacco for the corporations, the millions of people that smoke and chew tobacco products, and of course the corporations that supply an economy for their states.
A good number of politicians do, in fact, think they are doing the right thing. The pay for being a representative doesn't compare with being a doctor, lawyer, scientist, several different types of engineer, or corporate executive. The amount of power in being a representative, especially in the House, is also fairly small, given the distribution. This isn't too say that none of them are in the pockets of corporations, but to suggest that all politicians are somehow corporate whores is nonsense. We'd have no where near as pleasent a society, if all they did was bow down to multinational corporations.
The Government is good for many things, you just need to get involved. You'd be surprised how much more your Government represents you, when you start voting, lobbying, attending town counsel meetings, going to school board meetings, running for local/state/federal office, etc.
Certainly for the people, but also *by* the people
I tend to agree that it's a bit irresponsible on their part, but the impact may very well be minimal, or even nonexistant.
It's a bit like seeing someone in a crowded room cough, and start yelling "That man has an air-born infectious disease!"
Perhaps the biggest difference, though, is Slashdot isn't going to get trampled by a horde of people running for the exit. =)
I hope this was made in jest, and not a serious cry for prices of memory to increase, so as to keep people from using Windows.
This may or may not come as a surprise, but not everyone is the same. We've all different interests and needs, and Windows certainly does fill a need (perhaps several) for people. And though it may not suit your needs, and you may disagree with the practices of its manufacturer, it's still a product that people use for work, education, entertainment, and several other meaningful human activities.
It seems that having prices go up for RAM, enough so that Windows users can't afford a computer, can only hurt average people. People that want a computer for their child to do homework, people that want a computer for entertainment, and people that own small businesses that want a computer to help them keep track of finances, or for their employees to work on. In short, people that can benefit from the "standard" that Windows offers them.
I find it a bit cruel to wish a small business owner, educator, or parent ill, simply because they'd use what worked for them.
But I imagine you were only joking, so perhaps this post is a bit irrelevant. I apologize for wasting your time, if it was.
Excuse me?
Please, someone tell me how exactly that was a troll.
I'd find the discussion enlightening, at the very least.
Ahh yes, our perfect Constitution. The same infallible document created by the same infallible founding fathers that owned slaves, and didn't see women as their equals.
People need to realize that the needs of society expand as time goes on. You can't go back to the glorious days of the early Constitution, and I wouldn't want to.
Copyright is acceptable, what's unacceptable is the eternal extension it will see, because instead of lobbying or running for office, its opponents simply decide to ignore it.
Patents, though originally created for the good of the inventor, are indeed worthless.
Let's just forget about the money one can make via support of mass distribution of proprietary software....
What would be the point of creating free software if you can't make money off of it?
Of course they're poor. You wouldn't see organizations attempting to use their money to help these countries develop, if they had piles of U.S. dollars.
However, attempting to construct businesses that can't be maintained by the country, isn't going to do it any good.
More than money, what these countries need is a self-sustaining infrastructure. You can get money as a side-effect, but the infrastructure needs to be built.
A much better way for this to be built, is for organizations to construct, for free, this infrastructure. Otherwise these countries become tied to the World Bank, and eventually further exploitation by the U.S. corporations. Fun stuff, really.
Once the infrastructure is in place, the populations can be educated in various things, such as literacy, mathematics, the sciences, engineering, medicine, good farming techniques, etc.
To attempt to thoughtlessly industrialize a nation, is somewhat moronic. To expect that you can create an economy with ignorant people is naive.
If you attempt to industrialize a nation, without educating the masses, the country is doomed to a painful developmental process, just like the U.S. and the Britain went through. Massive exploitation of people by a small ruling class. If this is what you wish for developing nations, then I'm saddened.
What sort of economy can one expect from a horde of ignorant workers? One based upon mindless factory work, such as China. The scenario is more or less a large U.S. corporation setting up its construction in a developing country with poor, ignorant people, and using lax social laws to exploit them heartlessly.
After all, you can't expect a country of ignorant people to somehow be able to compete against the factory workers of multinational corporations. And without quality education, they domain of employment is limited.
Now of course you'll suggest that somehow these same ignorant hordes can construct an e-commerce business that will be able to rival all of the countless other e-commerce businesses, when they exist in a country that "has no resources."
You site quite heavily into the construction of the U.S. economy. Mentioning slaves, ignorant factory workers, and poor education.
Certainly the U.S. has a deplorable history, and if it's your belief that through repracticing the same injustices against the people of third world nations will somehow construct an equal setting, then I urge you to think again.
The world was certainly a much different place while the U.S. was industrializing, enslaving, and exploiting its workers. And though while no one is there to enslave and exploit you, you can certainly build quite an economy (for a small number of people, at least), it's certainly different when there is an entrenched giant exploiter waiting to utilize your weak country for its cheap labor.
If you settle for attempting to produce just a worker class of citizen, while a small number of people attempt some form of modern business, your country will just be ripe for exploitation by the U.S. corporations.
If organizations were to hand-hold a developing nation while it developed, the nation would be developed in parallel, and stand a better chance of being able to stand on its own. It's hard to exploit a nation of educated people, fully involved in their Government, and capable of designing their own technologies and economies.
What is really need, is large scale non-profit investment.
The U.S., while an extremely rich country, is also a country of great inequality. A very small amount of the population is in control of the majority of our GDP. We've a long history of exploitation of workers by this small population, and a long history of exporting this exploitation to other countries, as our citizenry becomes increasingly more resistant to domination.
And most importantly, the U.S. is still broken. The education system is hardly the worst in the world, but is certainly in need of development. Our higher education facilities are amongst the best in the world, while our secondary schools range from excellent to poor, depending on population density.
You don't think that those large amounts of poorly educated people in high population density regions are experiencing the benefits of our "great economy," do you?
Try living in the poor part of a U.S. city, and tell me you want to encourage the same sort of exploitation that the U.S. used to get where it is today, because you dream that one day that people have that to look forward to.
There is certainly room for computer education in developing nations, but there's also limited good, at this time, that just wasting money on setting up a few computer businesses can do.
The resources would be better spent advancing their schools, and not wasting money on businesses that will just fail, at best.
I agree that it's a shame people seem to take RMS's commentary as somehow representing all of those that develop and support free software.
All too often dotters troll attacking RMS's religion, and amusingly enough people write serious articles painting all of the free software community as loons, using his words.
Another problem is that those that promote an open attitude for free software (like ESR) seem to be crazy libertarians. Free market zealots don't impress or represent me anymore than RMS does.
Give a man that can't fish a computer, and watch him try to catch fish with it.
I would just like to commend you for this. All too often U.S. citizens tend to take for granted their particular lifestyle, and forget that a large portion of our population isn't very well off.
You're doing a noble thing, and I can only hope that there're many other people equally concerned with the well being of neighbors.
Up to date information about AIDS is useless if you don't have scientists to apply that information.
There is no end to the need of this infrastructure in a developing nation. And infrastructure is all we should build in these nations, not businesses.
The money would be better spent helping them educate their children, than helping them construct 'net cafes, internet service providers, or anything else. Even constructing general telecommunications equipment is more important, than specifically offering them the internet.
In Ghana they'd be better off donating computers to the few quality sources of education, than anything else. And perhaps taking positions in their schools to help teach math, science, etc.
You can't run before you can walk, and that's certainly what it sounds like.
I think you're sort of missing his point.
To successfully feed a large population, you need to have a lot of infrastructure in place. This infrastructure, which leads to successful and prolonged feeding of the people, is the same infrastructure that allows people to study that new-fangled "fire thing."
Creating an internet cafe in a country where they don't even know what an eigenvector or a cell is, isn't going to help them much. So a priority above an internet cafe is obviously an effective means of education. And to provide an effective means of education, you need institutions to aid in mass education. And to build these institutions you need to be able to process stone, metal, wood, etc effectively. You also need to construct environmentally safe sources of power, and so on and so on.
You can't just give people that can't afford vacinations five 386es, and expect them to somehow build an economy on it.
While we're suggesting population control, perhaps U.S. citizens should stop having children. This way our flooded education system can have a chance to correctly process our urban children, we can lower our percentage of the world's pollutants, lower our percentage of usage of the entire planet's fossil fuel supply, curb our destruction of our lakes, streams, and oceans, and any number of other things we do wrong.
It would also be beneficial if a few hundred thousand patriots would commit suicide, especially executives of multinational corporations. This should cut down on the exploitation of the world's people by a great amount.
On a serious note, this isn't the sort of infrastructure developing nations need. They need real schools, good roads, good plumbing infrastructure, environmentally friendly means of producing electricity, hospitals, and effective agriculture.
Learning how to use a computer isn't going to help them make better roads, if they don't know math enough to seriously study physics.
Perhaps you should think about what the individual was saying for a moment. Obviously he's stating that he will not donate time or money to this program. I don't him one stating that he does in any way pay for this rather innane program.
You could, in fact, feed every single human being on this planet. It wouldn't even take a remotely large faction of total land area of the planet.
The problem lies in distribution, whether it be how to get it there, or supporting (financially) the number of people needed to supply food for the rest of the world.
There will always be poor people, while any one person thinks that he is somehow entitled to as much of everything as he can possibley get, and that the condition of everyone else is irrelevant.
5% of the population having 80% of the world's wealth is a rather good indicator that our system "doesn't work."
There has been no real institution of communism, so whether it would work or not is hard to say. And before you call China or the U.S.S.R communists, I think you should read some Marx.
Totalitarian regimes don't a communist make.
It's impossible to institute mass education without creating infrastructure, so I'm not certain his theory is worth much.
Not to mention that there's no shortage of things for an educated individual to do, in a developing nation, so I can't see them revolting out of boredom.
If however they're being abused by their Government, perhaps revolting isn't such a bad thing.
I'd tend to think it's a bit stupid, since an Internet Cafe is of little use to a developing nation.
Before we waste our time "educating" the people of a developing nation on how to use ICQ, or even how to type, perhaps helping them to construct meaningul systems of formal education is in order.
As for feeding the poor, that's a different can of beans all together. If you expect people to become self-sufficient, and not need continuous supplies of food, then you need to develop infrastructure for them.
This includes things like:
Creating real systems of education, like public schools for children and adults.
Creating specific schools for training teachers, so they can then train future generations of children.
Donating machinery for processing wood, stone, and various metals. It's hard to build a school without mills, saws, hammers, etc. And when you've a small economy (if any) it's almost impossible to buy these things. Of course we always have the World Bank to lend them money, so if they ever manage to construct an economy, U.S. corporations can setup shop in their country, and begin exploiting their population for cheap labor and eventually a new source of capital.
Donating farm equipment, like tractors and plows.
Educating the farmers on the use of compost for fertilizers.
Donating supplies of genetically engineered seeds for planting, to increase yields. Then educate the farmers on sustaining their system, to keep from needing further large sources of seed.
Creating roads, and teaching them how to construct road systems that last many years.
Creating supplies of safe drinking water, and educating them in various plumbing and filtering techniques.
etc etc etc
There's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be given, and education on how to preserve, and construct the infrastructure. I can't see any developing nation putting an internet cafe above quality education for its young. And though you may consider using computers as "quality education," I think that they could use mathematics, literacy, physics, biology, chemistry, medicine, etc a lot more.
What developing nations don't need:
Religous groups attempting to "convert" them, in exchange for vacinations and food.
Corporations "investing" in them, for later exploitation.
> *Everyone* acts and thinks this way, if the
> laws actually reflected what was right and was
> wrong, then things would be different, but they > don't. Assuming all Napster users are hurtful
> pirates really doesn't jive
There is no absolute right or wrong, I'm afraid. It's not the point of law to reflect an absolute right or wrong, but rather to maintain an average sense of order and equality amongst the citizens.
You may feel perfectly justified in breaking traffic laws on a highway, but would you suggest that it's acceptable to speed in a residential zone? It's all fine and dandy, until someone's child or pet is turned into a pancake, because someone thought a Children at Play sign meant accelerate to warp three.
I would agree that traffic laws regarding highway velocity may be unfair, yet to say it's alright to disregard traffic laws if you feel like it, is a short-sighted and lazy approach to fixing your problems. You feel like speeding on the highway, and someone else feels like speeding through a residential area. Neither of you thinks you're going to hurt anyone, and that the law is unjust, but you must certainly see why it's not a good idea to "just do it."
No, a better approach is for people to abide by these laws, regardless of their personal feelings, and to work to change the laws they feel are unjust. It's much easier to just attempt to ignore laws, isn't it? That doesn't get anything done, either. So a lot of good that mentality does.
> People will always put their morality in front
> of the law and I can't blame them as the law
> usually serves the power-strictures, not the
> citizen. Breaking laws that you think are unfair
> and limit your freedoms is perfectly
> healthy, if we were all law-loving automatons
No, people put their id in front of the law, not their morality. This is hardly healthy.
The law is there to protect you, your family, and your friends. If you don't participate in it, don't be surprised if it doesn't reflect your ideals and freedoms.
Our laws are certainly broken in many places, but blindly following impulses, instead of attempting to change minds and laws doesn't help one's cause any. It just feeds the id.
> we'd still be in the midst of slave owners,
> theocracies, and illiterate life-long sweatshop
> workers.
It's law that set slaves free, and it's the work of amancipationists and civil rights activists that set our minds free of slavery. They certainly violated many laws in the process of freeing slaves, but simply shipping slaves to Canada didn't help the populations of slaves still working the fields.
I'd also venture that fighting civil rights injustices is certainly much different than changing traffic laws.
We also still do have life-long "sweatshop" workers. Why? Because either people violate the law and import and use illegal immigrants for labor, or depending on your definition of sweatshop (I think most factory work should fall under that term, since it's so horrible) it's still perfectly legal to provide less than acceptable working conditions for factory workers.
The U.S. is hardly a paragon in civil rights, since id-driven people often put themselves before others. Only through changing minds and changing laws will it get better, though. The next big thing will probably be equality for homosexuals, or perhaps finishing off giving women equality.
Then perhaps we can work on the equality of the working class. Sigh. So many things to fix.
> If you really want to convince the MP3 trading
> community to stop what they're doing you have to
> prove that the current copyright laws are more
> helpful than hurtful and that the industry
> doesn't artificially inflate their prices. Good
> luck with those two.
I'm certain that no one will convince impulsive people, that have little or no respect for others' rights, that they shouldn't "trade" others' work.
It also doesn't matter if the recording industry "artificially inflates" their prices. Simply put, it's their products, and they have the right to attempt to charge whatever they feel they're worth. You don't think that car you bought cost the manufacturer $20k, do you? Everyone deserves to earn a living.
If you, however, are unhappy with the cost or unfreely redistributable nature of most music, I urge you to stop participating in the system entirely, and to create and promote freely redistributable music. Instead of attempting to steal from recording industry, help construct a free music community. I certainly think it's the more noble thing to do. And in the end you get to know you helped set peoples' minds free.
If you're using pico for programming, then it's no wonder you'd like a formal IDE.
You should invest in learning vim, emacs, jed, or some other programming friendly editor.
As an objective observer, I wouldn't consider your reply to him to be overly cordial, either. Perhaps, then, you're not an overly productive developer? No, that makes little sense, and I'm sure you do a fine job. It's not even all that important, since not everyone is a programmer, anyway.
There seems to exist a vocal faction of any paticular "religion," that feels it must justify and flaunt their percieved superiority. Whether it's one car fanatic telling the other his Ford/Chevrolet/Dodge is inferior to XYZ, or one person claiming Britney Spears is not "real" music, simply because they don't like it.
Yes, it may be unfortunate. It certainly does get in the way of my dreams of a social ideal, but it's an inescapable reality. There will be KDE vs. GNOME flame wars for as long as either "side" has a userbase, simply because they both exist to fill the same space, and different people like different things.
It's also not really our place to attempt to keep people from attempting to champion whatever, since it's really a matter of harmless free speech. If we resent their behavior, and really want to limit their percieved damage to our realm, then we simply do not add any fuel to their fire.
So my advice to you, since you seem to hold an ideal of a cooperative community, is to not attempt to subjugate people carrying flame throwers. I think, though I may be wrong, that it only tarnishes your dream.
From the press release:
"Thanks to Glade, even the most inept programmers can construct beautiful user interfaces."
Yeah, that certainly makes me respect the individual[s] responsible for constructing that press release.
Only in a culture where people buy books that call them dummies, could programmers refer to each other as inept in good spirit.
I'm by no means an expert, but I'm not certain if colonizing the moon is worth it.
...).
The amount of gravity on the moon is fairly weak, so the human body would degenerate significantly while living on it. It wouldn't be as bad as living on Mir for years, but it's still not good.
It is exposed to a lot of radiation, since it has no atmosphere. This would mean you'd more or less have to live in a thick stone building, which isn't the romantic bubble dome lifestyle Star Trek would have one think.
I don't believe there's much in terms of resources one could use to fabricate most of the requirements of life. So you'd need frequent shuttle trips to bring supplies. Of course one could argue that once you've left the earth, traveling from orbit to the moon isn't overly costly. For a long term settlement, though, you'd want a bit more ease.
Though Mars has about 1/3 the gravity of earth, it's definitely an improvement over the moon. It's slightly better in terms of resources, since there's frozen water (caps, permafrost,
Of course if there're problems, it's also a lot farther away. Still, I'd rather shoot for a real planet, and leave the moon alone.
Which would mean the Mach microkernel, since 3.0 was the first "real" microkernel.
Apple simply sticks a BSD layer in the kernel address space (which violates microkernel principles), but they still use the Mach microkernel, and the BSD layer isn't inseperable per se, it's just they use it to provide most of the OS functionality. All in all, a somewhat short-sighted design.
The story doesn't really matter, since Jupiter isn't going to "blow up." Jupiter doesn't have enough mass to become a star, and if it were to become one, I find it hard to believe that its satelites wouldn't be enveloped.
In terms of the books I stand corrected, but I was under the impression we were talking about reality.