Example2 : You've got a pimp and a drug dealer in your street.
They've having a very bad impact onto the childhood. One day, they have an argument and the pimp end killing the dealer.
Now, you've only got one problem left, and it's not as serious as the drug problem (it's easier for a teen to take drugs and to die from these than to frequent hookers).
The pimp is extorting men and women he "employs." It might be a good thing for the drug dealer to be dead, but the pimp is still a sleazeball. Should I thank him and have sympathy for him for killing another human being before he's tossed in jail for exploiting people sexually?
Now, it (I associate pr0n and gambling as these both long remained the only cash making online services providers) begins developing technologies in order to make the whole ddos plague a past nuisance, so, why do you complain ? They're working for you, aren't they ?
Perhaps it's the fact that the impetus for developing these new technologies is for protecting their asses from outside intrusion when they (as an industry) willfully trampled over other peoples' privacy in order to shove their wares in peoples' faces.
So no, they're not working for me. They're working for themselves.
I know these gambling sites are legitimate companies, but it seems the worms that most people get are advertising either porno shops or gambling shops.
It's difficult for me to feel sorry for gambling sites getting DDoSed.
Smaller installation base. It's not theoretically impossible to write spyware or virii for Mac... just not as profitable. The folks that makes the programs rely on volume.
No. Poor boy, you've been indoctrinated by American propaganda. In a true Communist state, as defined by Marx, the people own the code. Period. The states of Russia and China, which fit the model you describe, were never Communist. They were only "Communist"... ie, totalitarianism wrapped up with a prettier name.
Actually, in reading the Manifesto (which I haven't finished yet, but probably will tonight), it seems pretty clear that Marx advocated the overthrow of the ruling class by force, if necessary. He also advocated the use of force for maintaining the non-ownership of property. In essence, the people become the ruling class and the bourgeois are eliminated by default.
The problem is the maintenance of such a system, which is the fatal flaw of the communist model on a large scale. The newly emancipated proletariat must find a way to administer the new social order, and thus a few assume those roles as necessary. As time goes on, the country begins to look more and more like a totalitarian regime and the class difference resembles more and more the old social order.
China and USSR were, indeed Communist nations to begin with. But as the necessary beaurocratic apparati to maintain the nations became established, they both more resembled totalitarian regimes. In effect, they became the end product of communism.
This is what Orwell depicted in Animal Farm.
And to the parent of the parent of this post, Communism != socialism. Socialism is an attempt to more evenly distribute wealth among the people, but it doesn't advocate the abolition of property ownership.
So, I'm going to ask the unpopular question now that everyone has recounted instances from their gaming lives where they've felt as if they were in a game...
Most of us quickly realized that we weren't playing a video game and that we were, in fact, in real life... what happens if someone is unable to make that connection? Al la, the kid who guns down his school mates because he played alot of doom? Does this sort of study add support for parents who think that video games make their kids do bad things?
It could also be a tool for maintenance of skills in a language. Proficiency deteriorates with disuse. I noticed it with both my German and Chinese skills.
The penalties resulting from the immense frauds (which are still happening) have been slim to none. I fear our desire for justice of a sorts will not be satisfied.
Oh, I definitely agree. One of the key aspects of any stable government or society is the ablity to police those that take actions causing its destruction.
As for wealth and prosperity... the language of economics itself is compromised with a lack of distinction. The guy who makes $1M on a round of currency speculation is not particularly differentiated from the guy who raises wheat and makes his own $1M on it. I find myself constrained by society's assumptions about a thing as basic as wealth; so some innovation (i.e. confusion) of terms is apt to occur. This should come as no surprise, since many people are very confused about money itself, even though it has a simple and pervasive presence in our lives.
I think what you're saying is that when someone has money, there is no indication as to how he came into it. The farmer who makes his living by producing a tangible good is seen as no different than one who makes his living at currency speculation. In the one case, there is a guy who is contributing to the overall well-being of society and on the other hand you have one guy whose work entails manipulating the system, but producing nothing of value. Your argument seems to be that there are more people working jobs of the latter nature and fewer working jobs of the former.
I don't think it's possible to completely prevent people from learning how to work the system, but I can see your point about the imbalance. I'm not sure if I'm totally on board with the argument that we're too far gone. That's a pretty strong indictment.
It also seems that your problem isn't so much with industry itself, but the current state that it is in. In other words, reform is needed. I believe I was arguing from a more abstract position; that the ideal model for an industry is sustainment.
I finished Korten's book "When Corporations Rule the World" about 2 months ago. It says much of what I (poorly) try to say about the difference between concentration of wealth (COW) and the pursuit of overall prosperity (POOP). We need both, but unfortunately for those of us who can't eat money, the COW part is on a 150% overdrive, leaving dangerously low levels of... er, POOP.
I'll take a look at Korten's book. It's on the queue now, right behind Adam Smith and Karl Marx (which are also behind about 20 books at the moment).
As for the issue of "ignorance"... I specifically used the term "soft pedal". You seem to have the appropriate attitude in place. Why then dance around the topic of our overindulgence in COW? COW that detracts from social fabric is the very definition of criminal behavior.
Well, because I wasn't sure exactly what you were speaking of. Plus, I'm not so sure that COW, if everyone is trying to do it, is necessarily bad thing. You have the qualifier that detracts from soial fabric, and that makes your statement more valid to me. It's more a game of semantics.
I don't mind being shown that I'm ignorant (as long as I'm ignorant about something important), but I do mind having my intellectual honesty questioned.
Maybe I took it the wrong way. In which case, I'm sorry.
I have to wonder if adding all that new functionality would be detrimental to future missions. As you said, we aimed very small with this mission, but we got amazing results. As software/hardware people know, adding complication to systems tends to break them or make them more fragile. Would the KISS principle apply in this case?
(Note, I'm not poo-pooing the notion of adding advanced functions, I just think we need to be cautious... shooting for the moon [pun intended] too quickly might backfire)
Logically, isn't in the interest of a scumbag executive to crash the company if he and he alone can bask in the heat of the impact? Yes.
This is true, which is why I'd like to see harsher penalties for business execs and their ilk fudging the numbers. It erodes public trust in the corporations and the executives who aren't scumbags.
That's nearly the entire point to my reply and those of others to your posting.
Actually, your reply was the most thought-provoking and coherent. The only other one that came close was Stiletto's reply.
This collapse has occured since "we" chose to honor the ridiculous and destructive ideas of death over life, wealth over prosperity, and privilege over rights.
I'm puzzled by your contrast of wealth over prosperity. What is the distinction in your mind?
I would agree with you on the privilege over rights contrast. It's injustice at its worst.
Soft-pedaling it like you have, is not particularly honest.
According to you, I'm speaking from ignorance. If I am ignorant, how is me presenting my worldview being dishonest?
This is so operationally false in so many ways that I'd say you are indulging in willful ignorance. America's industry is busily eviscerating itself just to make another impossible set of numbers each quarter in response to an investment bubble.
You ignored this qualifier sentence:
Now, whether or not the industrial world _knows_ how to maintain itself and not destroy us... THAT's another question...
Logically, isn't it in the interest of industry not to destroy civilization and to sustain itself because the sole source of its monetary wealth is derived from the confidence of the people? Yes.
You miss something, young teenager shaking in righteous angst...
The industrial world has a vested interest in maintaining itself and not destroying itself or us: If there is no civilization or people to buy goods and services, then money and soon power (as in power of the people, not nuclear power) go bye-bye.
It's simplistic and misses all those pesky nuances, but true.
Now, whether or not the industrial world _knows_ how to maintain itself and not destroy us... THAT's another question...
Thank God that George Lucas rebelled against Hollywood, not only by creating a biting satire of their business (title of Star Wars II anyone?) but by doing what no one in Hollywood has ever done - continue to add more and more to his original movies.
And to think, with all that originality, Chapters 1 and 2 still sucked.
Again, the phone is irrelevant. It's equally rude/annoying if a person is talking to another person sitting in the theater (in which there should be no talking by any means).
This is true. But just because talking in a movie theatre is considered rude on its own doesn't mean that talking on a cellphone in a movie theatre isn't also rude. Hence, talking on a cellphone in a movie theatre is rude.
You asked why talking on a cellphone is considered rude, and I said that talking on a cellphone was not inherently rude, it was the context that mattered in determining if it was rude behavior or not.
How is talking on a cellphone more rude/annoying than talking using a landline in a shared office? I've been in plenty of shared office spaces and had people talking way too loudly on their landline.
I didn't say it was more rude. I simply stated that it was rude.
Assuming you're not in that car, I fail to see how this is rude or annoying since you can't hear the conversation. It's more dangerous, perhaps, but not more rude/annoying.
If someone almost runs into me because they're distracted while talking on their cellphone, then I am annoyed because of their rudeness in nearly causing bodily harm. They nearly caused this bodily harm because they were distracted from paying attention to their driving while talking on a cell phone. Assuming that you allow transitive closure in your concept of rude, I find talking on a cell phone while driving to be rude behavior.
It's not the behavior itself. It's the context and the contexts for polite use of cell phones are still getting codified.
While on the train? No. While in the movie theatre? Yes. While in a shared office? Yes. While driving a car? Yes.
I can belch in the presence of certain friends and no one takes offense. If I tried that in the office in front of my advisor, I'd need to find another line of work.
Cool, are you on the project? Trying to remember who I met from USC in Venice. I can totally understand the problems with allowing more degrees of freedom in a dialogue. One problem is as you've stated, sometimes there are things that need to be covered that might be missed in allowing more freedom. The other is how to do the evaluation.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
My biggest question from all this is what is innate and what is socially normed behavior?
The two have been historically mixed up or blurred time and time again to fit with someone's or some group's particular social agenda.
In the future, when someone says, "The hamster in my computer died"... they might be literally correct!
Mod me down. -5 Lame.
Except that now I have a killer as well as a pimp on the loose.
Okay, I have to give you that.
The pimp is extorting men and women he "employs." It might be a good thing for the drug dealer to be dead, but the pimp is still a sleazeball. Should I thank him and have sympathy for him for killing another human being before he's tossed in jail for exploiting people sexually?
I think your analogy needs work.
Perhaps it's the fact that the impetus for developing these new technologies is for protecting their asses from outside intrusion when they (as an industry) willfully trampled over other peoples' privacy in order to shove their wares in peoples' faces.
So no, they're not working for me. They're working for themselves.
I know these gambling sites are legitimate companies, but it seems the worms that most people get are advertising either porno shops or gambling shops.
It's difficult for me to feel sorry for gambling sites getting DDoSed.
It was virus writers AND spyware makers.
Smaller installation base. It's not theoretically impossible to write spyware or virii for Mac... just not as profitable. The folks that makes the programs rely on volume.
The problem is the maintenance of such a system, which is the fatal flaw of the communist model on a large scale. The newly emancipated proletariat must find a way to administer the new social order, and thus a few assume those roles as necessary. As time goes on, the country begins to look more and more like a totalitarian regime and the class difference resembles more and more the old social order.
China and USSR were, indeed Communist nations to begin with. But as the necessary beaurocratic apparati to maintain the nations became established, they both more resembled totalitarian regimes. In effect, they became the end product of communism.
This is what Orwell depicted in Animal Farm.
And to the parent of the parent of this post, Communism != socialism. Socialism is an attempt to more evenly distribute wealth among the people, but it doesn't advocate the abolition of property ownership.
So, I'm going to ask the unpopular question now that everyone has recounted instances from their gaming lives where they've felt as if they were in a game...
Most of us quickly realized that we weren't playing a video game and that we were, in fact, in real life... what happens if someone is unable to make that connection? Al la, the kid who guns down his school mates because he played alot of doom? Does this sort of study add support for parents who think that video games make their kids do bad things?
I've found after playing CoH intensively that I'll sometimes think I can just point at an object and interact with it.
On related notes, when I've been coding intensively, I sometimes wish I had a debugger handy for real life situations.
Any intentional invocation of Godwin's law is ineffectual!
It could also be a tool for maintenance of skills in a language. Proficiency deteriorates with disuse. I noticed it with both my German and Chinese skills.
I don't think it's possible to completely prevent people from learning how to work the system, but I can see your point about the imbalance. I'm not sure if I'm totally on board with the argument that we're too far gone. That's a pretty strong indictment.
It also seems that your problem isn't so much with industry itself, but the current state that it is in. In other words, reform is needed. I believe I was arguing from a more abstract position; that the ideal model for an industry is sustainment.
I'll take a look at Korten's book. It's on the queue now, right behind Adam Smith and Karl Marx (which are also behind about 20 books at the moment). Well, because I wasn't sure exactly what you were speaking of. Plus, I'm not so sure that COW, if everyone is trying to do it, is necessarily bad thing. You have the qualifier that detracts from soial fabric, and that makes your statement more valid to me. It's more a game of semantics.I don't mind being shown that I'm ignorant (as long as I'm ignorant about something important), but I do mind having my intellectual honesty questioned.
Maybe I took it the wrong way. In which case, I'm sorry.
I have to wonder if adding all that new functionality would be detrimental to future missions. As you said, we aimed very small with this mission, but we got amazing results. As software/hardware people know, adding complication to systems tends to break them or make them more fragile. Would the KISS principle apply in this case?
(Note, I'm not poo-pooing the notion of adding advanced functions, I just think we need to be cautious... shooting for the moon [pun intended] too quickly might backfire)
You ignored this qualifier sentence:
Logically, isn't it in the interest of industry not to destroy civilization and to sustain itself because the sole source of its monetary wealth is derived from the confidence of the people? Yes.
But I didn't say they were doing it.
You miss something, young teenager shaking in righteous angst...
The industrial world has a vested interest in maintaining itself and not destroying itself or us: If there is no civilization or people to buy goods and services, then money and soon power (as in power of the people, not nuclear power) go bye-bye.
It's simplistic and misses all those pesky nuances, but true.
Now, whether or not the industrial world _knows_ how to maintain itself and not destroy us... THAT's another question...
And to think, with all that originality, Chapters 1 and 2 still sucked.
And being inattentive while driving is rude to people around you. Hence, their rudeness.
This is true. But just because talking in a movie theatre is considered rude on its own doesn't mean that talking on a cellphone in a movie theatre isn't also rude. Hence, talking on a cellphone in a movie theatre is rude.
You asked why talking on a cellphone is considered rude, and I said that talking on a cellphone was not inherently rude, it was the context that mattered in determining if it was rude behavior or not.
I didn't say it was more rude. I simply stated that it was rude.
If someone almost runs into me because they're distracted while talking on their cellphone, then I am annoyed because of their rudeness in nearly causing bodily harm. They nearly caused this bodily harm because they were distracted from paying attention to their driving while talking on a cell phone. Assuming that you allow transitive closure in your concept of rude, I find talking on a cell phone while driving to be rude behavior.
It's not the behavior itself. It's the context and the contexts for polite use of cell phones are still getting codified.
While on the train? No.
While in the movie theatre? Yes.
While in a shared office? Yes.
While driving a car? Yes.
I can belch in the presence of certain friends and no one takes offense. If I tried that in the office in front of my advisor, I'd need to find another line of work.
Cool, are you on the project? Trying to remember who I met from USC in Venice. I can totally understand the problems with allowing more degrees of freedom in a dialogue. One problem is as you've stated, sometimes there are things that need to be covered that might be missed in allowing more freedom. The other is how to do the evaluation. :-)