feudalism: a social system of rights and duties based on land tenure and personal relationships in which land (and to a much lesser degree other sources of income) is held in fief by vassals from lords to whom they owe specific services and with whom they are bound by personal loyalty. In a broader sense, the term denotes "feudal society," a form of civilization that flourishes especially in a closed agricultural economy and has certain general characteristics besides the mere presence of lords, vassals, and fiefs. In such a society, those who fulfill official duties, whether civil or military, do so not for the sake of an abstract notion of "the state" or of public service but because of personal and freely accepted links with their overlord, receiving remuneration in the form of fiefs, which they hold hereditarily. Because various public functions are closely associated with the fief rather than with the person who holds it, public authority becomes fragmented and decentralized. Another aspect of feudalism is the manorial or seignorial system in which landlords exercise over the unfree peasantry a wide variety of police, judicial, fiscal, and other rights.
Hey look, "personal and freely accepted links". I think the first part is very clearly what we've got today. And the "another aspect" mentioned is becoming more and more true, as this story demonstrates.
They don't need their own armies, police, courts, or jails when they're powerful enough to make governments do the dirty work for them.
As for the tied-to-the-land thing, okay, I'll grant you that (given the admission that it's often practically different) but it's a nitpick and doesn't really change the situation.
The reality of it is: we live in a split democratic/feudal system. Our political lives follow "modern" democratic concepts -- but when you clock in to work, it's back to lord-and-vassal. This is going to be more and more of a problem as corporations get more powerful. You may think you don't like big government, but that's nothin' compared to the potential evil of meganationals.
We're working on just this at Boston University. Our original plan, as reflected on the BU Linux web site was to base our distro on Bastille Linux -- that was back when Bastille was in super-early development and was planned as an actual distribution. They've gone the route of a hardening script, something we'd like to avoid. (We'd like all of our changes to be to RPMs, rather than pasted on afterward, for better system upgradability and managability.)
So, we're starting work on a distro of our own, integrating ideas from Bastille with Red Hat, and adding things we need like Kerberos IV, AFS (Arla, probably), Amanda, etc. If this sounds like what you're doing, please contact me at mattdm@bu.edu. It seems worthwhile to at least share ideas, even if we don't end up combining our work.
Sure. The argument I'm puting forth doesn't say that any given explanation is the best one. It just says that saying "oh, that is really unlikely" is a poor refutation. The only case in which we would be here would be the case where the unlikely thing happened. If there were 100 universes, and only one of them had intelligent life, only the people in that universe could ask "why are we here?".
To put it another way: the probability of intelligent life existing in a universe containing intelligent life is 1.
How much space is there in the universe? How long has it existed? How many other universes existed in other big bang/big cruch (gnab gib?) cycles before this one happened? Or, if you want to subscribe to the "many universes" theory, how many parallel universes exist right now?
In order to ask "why are we here?", we must be in a universe where the random chances did come out right -- or else we wouldn't be here. Not so amazing, really, 'cause look, here we are.
C'mon, this is something from a late-night, low-budget sci-fi show, not real science. This is mumbo-jumbo metaphysics -- there's absolutely zero science behind it. The "life is too complicated" argument seems to be the only one he's really got, and that one's pretty easily refuted by "well, here we are".
Physicists don't understand quantum mechanics.
Sure, it's complicated stuff. But people understand it a lot better than this guy does. We've got lasers that work, for example.
Today, one of the most popular interpretations, and one that has the backing of Nobel prize-winning physicists, is that there exists a multiverse in which everything that can happen really does happen -- but in parallel universes.
A fun explanation, and good for sci-fi, but I believe the "Copenhagen Interpretation" is more widely accepted -- essentially, particles not being observed exist in a state of probability waves. But anyway, if one is to accept this, this completely destroys the "life is too complicated" argument. Sure, it's complicated -- but even very small probablities have to happen somewhere in the "multiverse". And the only universes within which we'd be able to ask questions would be ones where that small chance happened.
Cells may enter quantum states when they are unable to divide and replicate and become isolated....
Um, no, that's when they d-i-e.
I haven't read the book, just the web article linked to above. But it sounds ridiculous to me. And the author is no expert in quantum mechanics -- he specializes in infectious diseases. Sounds like he read something about quantum mechanics in a pop science mag, and went from there.
Wow, I thought someone here would, but no one has said anything yet. Does anyone know what exact date Palm released Graffiti for the Newton (as an add-on application)? It seems like someone must know that, and it seems extremely relevant, yet I haven't seen the information anywhere and can't find it on the web.
I get the sense that Rob, in hs AAGHH, lumps this together with the moderation-system-for-incoming-stories, even though that's a much different concept. That was certainly brought up in the interview-questions story, but not answered here at all.
The problem is, the FAQ doesn't answer the question. People are suggesting a community moderation system for the incoming queue. The FAQ just talks about being able to view the submissions. It's a totally different issue. So responding with "That's a FAQ" isn't helpful.
I don't think it should be problem. They can have the exclusive rights to sell the Official Branded SuSE Box. (BTW: Is everything on the official SuSE CD under a free license? Or is it like older RH distros and includes some non-free stuff?) Other people should be able to make copies of the GPL/open source/free SuSE code, but marketing is a different issue. It's probably legally possible for SuSE to forbid other people to market products using their name. (Not that this would necessarily be a good idea.)
You can't copyright a name. And trademark works on a per-country basis. I know that Linus holds the trademark in the US. (Fun to note this one though. Perfectly ok because operating systems aren't laundry detergent or toothpaste.) I believe that Linus also holds the trademark Linux in several other countries, but I'm not sure of details. Anyone?
Not to be a jerk about it, but perhaps if the process were more open, there'd be someone who would write the install scripts and whatnot for you. Making huge projects managable is part of what open source is all about, isn't it?
As much as I like mozilla, I think the "back from the grave" thing is more of a perception issue than reality. I've been following it all along, and it seems to have made slow but steady and perceptible progress since the beginning.
--
Re:Functionality Makes It To A Linux GUI
on
The ROX Desktop
·
· Score: 2
This isn't a Gnome issue really -- it's a window manager one. But: not having new windows get the focus is a GREAT and intelligent default. Otherwise, you're typing along, and something causes a new window to pop up, and suddenly, before you have a chance to react, whatever you've typed goes into the new window!
This is often a problem on MS Windows, as error messages get accidentally dismissed before you have a chance to read them.
Yeah, I've thought about this. The thing is, there's a "new millennium" _every_ year. There's always a period of 1000 years before the current one. And of course the same with decades.
Now, since we've had so few millennia since we've started counting, we're still fixated on making it start with year 1 AD. But with decades, there's been so damn many of them, we don't really care about making it line up at the beginning. So it's more convenient to count the ones that make the pretty numbers line up.
Wow, very good job of not reading what you're commenting on. Geez. "often small", sez the definition. Where does it say anything about carrying anything in your pocket? Hey look, nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
from encyclopedia britannica:
Hey look, "personal and freely accepted links". I think the first part is very clearly what we've got today. And the "another aspect" mentioned is becoming more and more true, as this story demonstrates.
--
As for the tied-to-the-land thing, okay, I'll grant you that (given the admission that it's often practically different) but it's a nitpick and doesn't really change the situation.
--
--
--
We're working on just this at Boston University. Our original plan, as reflected on the BU Linux web site was to base our distro on Bastille Linux -- that was back when Bastille was in super-early development and was planned as an actual distribution. They've gone the route of a hardening script, something we'd like to avoid. (We'd like all of our changes to be to RPMs, rather than pasted on afterward, for better system upgradability and managability.)
So, we're starting work on a distro of our own, integrating ideas from Bastille with Red Hat, and adding things we need like Kerberos IV, AFS (Arla, probably), Amanda, etc. If this sounds like what you're doing, please contact me at mattdm@bu.edu . It seems worthwhile to at least share ideas, even if we don't end up combining our work.
--
To put it another way: the probability of intelligent life existing in a universe containing intelligent life is 1.
--
In order to ask "why are we here?", we must be in a universe where the random chances did come out right -- or else we wouldn't be here. Not so amazing, really, 'cause look, here we are.
--
C'mon, this is something from a late-night, low-budget sci-fi show, not real science. This is mumbo-jumbo metaphysics -- there's absolutely zero science behind it. The "life is too complicated" argument seems to be the only one he's really got, and that one's pretty easily refuted by "well, here we are".
Physicists don't understand quantum mechanics.
Sure, it's complicated stuff. But people understand it a lot better than this guy does. We've got lasers that work, for example.
Today, one of the most popular interpretations, and one that has the backing of Nobel prize-winning physicists, is that there exists a multiverse in which everything that can happen really does happen -- but in parallel universes.
A fun explanation, and good for sci-fi, but I believe the "Copenhagen Interpretation" is more widely accepted -- essentially, particles not being observed exist in a state of probability waves. But anyway, if one is to accept this, this completely destroys the "life is too complicated" argument. Sure, it's complicated -- but even very small probablities have to happen somewhere in the "multiverse". And the only universes within which we'd be able to ask questions would be ones where that small chance happened.
Cells may enter quantum states when they are unable to divide and replicate and become isolated....
Um, no, that's when they d-i-e.
I haven't read the book, just the web article linked to above. But it sounds ridiculous to me. And the author is no expert in quantum mechanics -- he specializes in infectious diseases. Sounds like he read something about quantum mechanics in a pop science mag, and went from there.
--
--
When did Graffiti come out for the Newton? Isn't it far older than that? (And thus prior art?)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Plus, really bored people could read the whole submission queue.
--
Suggestion: make the incoming queue be a page which gets moderated. Then, the editors just have to pick from the stuff at the top.
--
--
--
--
This is often a problem on MS Windows, as error messages get accidentally dismissed before you have a chance to read them.
--
--
Now, since we've had so few millennia since we've started counting, we're still fixated on making it start with year 1 AD. But with decades, there's been so damn many of them, we don't really care about making it line up at the beginning. So it's more convenient to count the ones that make the pretty numbers line up.
--
--