a massive public good, it's critical to both the security and well being of the nation.
Everybody uses those words about everything. They are meaningless.
If your idea or project or initiative or agenda or whatever is so important, then you should be able to find people who will readily make voluntary investments.
I don't want a world where China discovers efficient fusion power first and uses it to establish utter world domination.
You accuse me of a silly comment? Hey, I hear Saddam had WMDs.
Your little fantasies are no basis for stealing money from people to fund your little projects (which might also be fantasies).
we will force you to pay taxes, go to prison, or get shot in the head - pick one.
For the "public good", you threaten me with a cage or with a violent death?
For the "public good" and for the funding of your project, you would remove a productive person from society?
For the "public good" and for the funding of your project, you would waste resources keeping me caged up?
Of course not. You just want me to pay my taxes to fund your little projects. These are merely threats, mostly empty, but sometimes fulfilled in order to keep the game going.
You are not "Libertarian leaning" (not even in the slightest).
Ironically, you are the one who has put up straw men and a false dichotomy.
I don't state that all government should be thrown out. Rather, I imply that the power structure should be decentralized and localized as much as possible.
Firstly, evolution is a process; biological evolution just happens to be the most prominent example of evolution.
Secondly, evolution is defined by 2 phenomena: Variation and Selection. For the record, neither of these phenomena need be random or even mindless (especially selection).
Is that enough spoonfeeding and hand-holding for your mind?
I guess it must be appealing to reduce the complexity and unavoidable ambiguity of human society to something that can be solved via one-size-fits-most central planning by an Intelligent Designer, a noble bureaucrat with a brilliant mind and a crystal ball.
The best computer simulations written by the best scientists and fed with decades of data still can't predict terribly accurately even something as mindless as the weather; what makes you think an "expert" has any chance whatsoever of predicting let alone controlling social, financial, and technological development?
Complex systems have no master, but that's exactly the role that Government tries to play the larger and more centralized it becomes. Intelligent Design is a fanatasy; localized, decentralized experiments are essential to peaceful evolution towards a prosperous world.
You must believe in Intelligent Design; otherwise, you'd see the folly of central planning by the noble bureaucrat with his brilliant mind and his crystal ball.
Terms like "social contract" and "public good" are buzzwords and straw men (similar to "Patriot Act").
That's a straw man argument; I'm already arguing AGAINST violence: The violence by "non-Government" Somalia is no different than the violence by "Government"; violence is violence, regardless of whether you're called Warlord or Sheriff.
The Internet developed despite Government; indeed, look at what's happening now that the Government wants more control of the Internet.
That every now and then Government funds a project which becomes widely useful does not mean that Government funding or involvement is necessary or even good (especially when you count overhead and waste).
Standards are mainly supposed to codify existing practice, not introduce new practices. W3C's choice means nothing unless browser makers actually support the choice.
Most people never did a lot of things until somebody showed them a better way. I'm not talking about a bash shell running in a VT102 emulator; I'm talking about a keyboard-centric environment.
I'm talking about keyboard-centric environments, not non-graphical environments.
In that respect, I disagree with you wholeheartedly with regard to something like non-linear video editing. Even much of graphic design doesn't require, say, the free-hand work of a mouse or some other tool other than the keyboard. Moreover, people who do tasks which necessitate tools other than the keyboard still also perform many tasks for which the keyboard is probably the best input device: Browsing the Internet, instant messaging, sending/receiving email, administrative stuff for their design companies (spreadsheets, graphs, and the like), and the initiation of complex computation (perhaps involving multiple components).
A lot of time is wasted trying to communicate with the computer through a device as limited as the mouse.
I thought doing everything from the command line makes one look like a sophisticated hacker...
In truth, though, I believe people made a mistake when they gave up the keyboard in favor of graphical trickery. If you take the time to cobble together a shadow of such a system, it becomes very clear that a keyboard-centric environment is one of the most superior modes by which to compute, because the keyboard is currently one of the most (if not the most) superior modes by which to communicate with a computer when it comes to a panoply of tasks.
As the older people die off, I believe we'll start to see more keyboard-centric environments pop up once again; soon enough, a computing environment for grandma will be targeting someone who has been texting while driving her entire life. Just consider the Ubuntu head-up display stuff; I don't know much about it, but from what I've heard, the return to the keyboard has already begun.
Nope. Under the selective laws of the universe, the universe evolves such that hydrogen gas collapses into stars which generate heavier elements that are then dispersed throughout the cosmos. Large clouds of such dust accumulate, and by selective pressures produce accretion discs, from which galaxies form (and furthermore, in which star systems like our solar system form), and on and on and on.
Trying to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework from the very outset is a mistake; only the most obvious regulations should be put in place, and we should allow this societal development to begin right away without further regulatory inhibition, so that it can evolve naturally as it unfolds under the selective pressures of society.
Law emerges from reality through court cases. It almost never works well to try to create "comprehensive" legal frameworks by gazing into crystal balls. For complex systems, you MUST run the simulation; you must let reality unfold and process it AS IT HAPPENS.
As for the rest of your comment, I essentially tackle it here.
You are confused. Nothing is "centrally designed"; what you consider an "intelligent designer" is actually just a more complicated "selector".
Automated cars, telescopes, nightvission goggles, highspeed cameras, etc. all developed through trial and error (especially of the foundational concepts): variation (sometimes random!) and selection.
The selective phenomena have just gotten much more sophisticated over time, and the things being selected have themselves gotten much more sophisticated over time; the modern human can make selections much better than the single cell from which he ultimately descended. That is the nature of evolution: Exponential progress.
Trying to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework from the very outset is a mistake; only the most obvious regulations should be put in place, and we should allow this societal development to begin right away without further regulatory inhibition, so that it can evolve naturally as it unfolds under the selective pressures of society.
Nobody wants to wait. That's the whole point. That's why it is absurd to attempt to formulate a comprehensive system from first principles. We should let this new societal development unfold RIGHT NOW, and construct that comprehensive system along the way.
As an aside, while it took 10 billion years to go from the Big Bang to a newly formed Earth, it only took 4.4998 billion years to go from replicating molecules to the anatomically modern human, and less than 200 thousand years more to get to our modern civilization. Evolution progresses exponentially, because the selective phenomena become more complex.
It is completely absurd to think that the correct course of action is for a committee—a committee of bureaucrats, no less!—to pretend to gaze into some crystal ball in order to divine laws for a societal development that has yet to materialize in any appreciable form. A "comprehensive regulatory regime" will do nothing but stifle useful development.
What is the best way to construct an eyeball from hydrogen atoms? It took a mindless process like evolution (including cosmic evolution) to figure it out, notcentral planning by an intelligent designer. Our super computers and dedicated scientists can't even predict the weather terribly accurately; what makes you think any "expert" has the slightest clue how to predict and control social, technological, and economic development?
As with anything else that is so complicated, society should be allowed to evolve. The laws should emerge from reality, not from a committee of bureaucrats.
Slashdot Mirror
a massive public good, it's critical to both the security and well being of the nation.
Everybody uses those words about everything. They are meaningless.
If your idea or project or initiative or agenda or whatever is so important , then you should be able to find people who will readily make voluntary investments.
I don't want a world where China discovers efficient fusion power first and uses it to establish utter world domination.
You accuse me of a silly comment? Hey, I hear Saddam had WMDs.
Your little fantasies are no basis for stealing money from people to fund your little projects (which might also be fantasies).
we will force you to pay taxes, go to prison, or get shot in the head - pick one.
For the "public good", you threaten me with a cage or with a violent death?
For the "public good" and for the funding of your project, you would remove a productive person from society?
For the "public good" and for the funding of your project, you would waste resources keeping me caged up?
Of course not. You just want me to pay my taxes to fund your little projects. These are merely threats, mostly empty, but sometimes fulfilled in order to keep the game going.
You are not "Libertarian leaning" (not even in the slightest).
Ironically, you are the one who has put up straw men and a false dichotomy.
I don't state that all government should be thrown out. Rather, I imply that the power structure should be decentralized and localized as much as possible.
Firstly, evolution is a process; biological evolution just happens to be the most prominent example of evolution.
Secondly, evolution is defined by 2 phenomena: Variation and Selection. For the record, neither of these phenomena need be random or even mindless (especially selection).
Is that enough spoonfeeding and hand-holding for your mind?
I guess it must be appealing to reduce the complexity and unavoidable ambiguity of human society to something that can be solved via one-size-fits-most central planning by an Intelligent Designer, a noble bureaucrat with a brilliant mind and a crystal ball.
The best computer simulations written by the best scientists and fed with decades of data still can't predict terribly accurately even something as mindless as the weather; what makes you think an "expert" has any chance whatsoever of predicting let alone controlling social, financial, and technological development?
Complex systems have no master, but that's exactly the role that Government tries to play the larger and more centralized it becomes. Intelligent Design is a fanatasy; localized, decentralized experiments are essential to peaceful evolution towards a prosperous world.
You must believe in Intelligent Design; otherwise, you'd see the folly of central planning by the noble bureaucrat with his brilliant mind and his crystal ball.
Terms like "social contract" and "public good" are buzzwords and straw men (similar to "Patriot Act").
That's a straw man argument; I'm already arguing AGAINST violence: The violence by "non-Government" Somalia is no different than the violence by "Government"; violence is violence, regardless of whether you're called Warlord or Sheriff.
I said "your little science projects" not "your little competing science projects".
Also, I don't think you really understand evolution.
Isn't that implicit in my remark?
The Internet developed despite Government; indeed, look at what's happening now that the Government wants more control of the Internet.
That every now and then Government funds a project which becomes widely useful does not mean that Government funding or involvement is necessary or even good (especially when you count overhead and waste).
Go solicit private capital rather than forcing me under the threat of violence to fund your little science projects.
Standards are mainly supposed to codify existing practice, not introduce new practices. W3C's choice means nothing unless browser makers actually support the choice.
Coincidentally, the FBI now lists as suspicious activity making purchases with cash.
Where do I say I'm being picked on? Where do I use circular logic? My comment wasn't meant to be an axiomatic manifesto.
Most people never did a lot of things until somebody showed them a better way. I'm not talking about a bash shell running in a VT102 emulator; I'm talking about a keyboard-centric environment.
I'm not talking about a bash shell running in a VT102 emulator. I'm talking about a keyboard-centric environment.
I'm not talking about GUIs or CLIs. I'm talking about keyboard-centric environments.
I'm talking about keyboard-centric environments, not non-graphical environments.
In that respect, I disagree with you wholeheartedly with regard to something like non-linear video editing. Even much of graphic design doesn't require, say, the free-hand work of a mouse or some other tool other than the keyboard. Moreover, people who do tasks which necessitate tools other than the keyboard still also perform many tasks for which the keyboard is probably the best input device: Browsing the Internet, instant messaging, sending/receiving email, administrative stuff for their design companies (spreadsheets, graphs, and the like), and the initiation of complex computation (perhaps involving multiple components).
A lot of time is wasted trying to communicate with the computer through a device as limited as the mouse.
You are a prime example of why communication is such a rotten business. The amount of misinterpretation/spin in your reply is astounding.
I thought doing everything from the command line makes one look like a sophisticated hacker...
In truth, though, I believe people made a mistake when they gave up the keyboard in favor of graphical trickery. If you take the time to cobble together a shadow of such a system, it becomes very clear that a keyboard-centric environment is one of the most superior modes by which to compute, because the keyboard is currently one of the most (if not the most) superior modes by which to communicate with a computer when it comes to a panoply of tasks.
As the older people die off, I believe we'll start to see more keyboard-centric environments pop up once again; soon enough, a computing environment for grandma will be targeting someone who has been texting while driving her entire life. Just consider the Ubuntu head-up display stuff; I don't know much about it, but from what I've heard, the return to the keyboard has already begun.
Nope. Under the selective laws of the universe, the universe evolves such that hydrogen gas collapses into stars which generate heavier elements that are then dispersed throughout the cosmos. Large clouds of such dust accumulate, and by selective pressures produce accretion discs, from which galaxies form (and furthermore, in which star systems like our solar system form), and on and on and on.
It's all the same. Variation and selection.
Again:
Your statement is clearly (that is, hopefully) just a humorous straw man argument.
Also, please note: 'Evolution' is a process, and 'biological' evolution is just one manifestation of that process (it is the most prominent example).
Law emerges from reality through court cases. It almost never works well to try to create "comprehensive" legal frameworks by gazing into crystal balls. For complex systems, you MUST run the simulation; you must let reality unfold and process it AS IT HAPPENS.
As for the rest of your comment, I essentially tackle it here.
You are confused. Nothing is "centrally designed"; what you consider an "intelligent designer" is actually just a more complicated "selector".
Automated cars, telescopes, nightvission goggles, highspeed cameras, etc. all developed through trial and error (especially of the foundational concepts): variation (sometimes random!) and selection.
The selective phenomena have just gotten much more sophisticated over time, and the things being selected have themselves gotten much more sophisticated over time; the modern human can make selections much better than the single cell from which he ultimately descended. That is the nature of evolution: Exponential progress.
Trying to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework from the very outset is a mistake; only the most obvious regulations should be put in place, and we should allow this societal development to begin right away without further regulatory inhibition, so that it can evolve naturally as it unfolds under the selective pressures of society.
Nobody wants to wait. That's the whole point. That's why it is absurd to attempt to formulate a comprehensive system from first principles. We should let this new societal development unfold RIGHT NOW, and construct that comprehensive system along the way.
As an aside, while it took 10 billion years to go from the Big Bang to a newly formed Earth, it only took 4.4998 billion years to go from replicating molecules to the anatomically modern human, and less than 200 thousand years more to get to our modern civilization. Evolution progresses exponentially, because the selective phenomena become more complex.
It is completely absurd to think that the correct course of action is for a committee—a committee of bureaucrats, no less!—to pretend to gaze into some crystal ball in order to divine laws for a societal development that has yet to materialize in any appreciable form. A "comprehensive regulatory regime" will do nothing but stifle useful development.
What is the best way to construct an eyeball from hydrogen atoms? It took a mindless process like evolution (including cosmic evolution) to figure it out, not central planning by an intelligent designer. Our super computers and dedicated scientists can't even predict the weather terribly accurately; what makes you think any "expert" has the slightest clue how to predict and control social, technological, and economic development?
As with anything else that is so complicated, society should be allowed to evolve. The laws should emerge from reality, not from a committee of bureaucrats.
Central planning does NOT work.