The surging popularity of Linux has been partially attributed to the fact that the programming code is exposed, or open, and can be customized by users. As a result, IT managers can obtain an efficiently tailored OS that also costs less. The OS is more popular in low-end file and print servers or slim servers stacked up by the dozen rather than the expensive multiprocessor machines where Unix currently prevails.
I love the distinction between Linux and Unix!
It's interesting that the paragraphs below this talk about "Unix" making up about 53% of the revenue ~ 3 billion. What are the systems that are so expensive even though they are only ~0.8 million (15%) of market-share? Sun, DEC, HP, SGI? They must have appalling licence fees.
Nothing companies do is free Likewise for advertising etc, all that goes towards raising the price of the product. I'd rather see a simple technical detailing of the merits of the product and then I'll decide between them on a rational basis - screw clever superbowl ads
But the biggest economic falsehood that Katz furthers is that money not "given away" is idle I think I've noticed you posting this point before and I agree with it - but I draw different conclusions from it than you do. The money flows inn investment patterns, people get little cuts of it if they're small guys providing services. Those services they provide are creating real value, it's productive, they make something (knowledege or material), they labour. They add to the world by work. However, BillG (as an example) controls the flow of the money and takes the labour that this little guy does. He allows him to have as little of it as he can (enough to satisfy his lowly needs for a Lexus and a nice PC and a mortgage and health-care) as determined by how many other people can do the labour that little guy can. With the excess labour skimmed from this guy and many others like him Bill G is able to control the labour market, the policies of the government and the social conditions (to be sure there are limits to this and it needs the aquiesence and complicity of the little guy - otherwise you get a revolution) and the media (good propaganda is necessary to make sure that the little guy gets a picture of the world that makes him believe that this is the best way). So the money definitely doesn't lie idle in the simplistic sense that Katz would have it, nor yet is it simply flowing through BillG's hands and into the hands of his technicians and plumbers without any other effect.
The gap between the middle and lower-classes will close: He's talking about what has been called the "Digital Divide". Specifically he's talking about employees of Ford, and he sees this beneficence being extended to other corporations enabling their employees to have these machines - most of the people working for these companies could afford $300 to get an old 486 and shove Linux on it. I consider phrases like the digital divide, which formulate the inequality in society as being due to possession/non-possession of a particular material thing, to obscure the real divide - power/non-power. It is true that the particular thing is lacking and that this is bad for those people but it's not the root cause. This leads to the next point that you make: the gap may not close, but every step closer is a good thing. It's more of a moving target - by the time the masses have PC's the expensive, power delivering new thing will be there and guess what - poor people won't have it. It's like looking back to the turn of the century and talking about how soon everyone will have a car (oh wait, he did that didn't he?, that was part of Ford's wonderful legacy) and this will enhance mobility. Looked great then, but right now would you rather sit in traffic like everyone else or use your small, private air-craft? Katz sure is flip-flopping - it's because his analysis is trite and based upon unrealities, so he blows with the winds of fashion.
What happened to Katz, fearless crusader against globalization?
Well, it's like this see - Mr.Katz isn't very smart and he hasn't followed any of the discussions in the Free Software community about free(beer) vs. Free (speech), so when something like this rolls around he's easily confused. Basically, like a lot of whiners against globalism his beef is that he isn't getting any - if he were a little richer then he would re-adjust his psyche and arguments to the view that the world was a good place. I hereby swear NEVER to post about or read Katz articles again, that's the only way we'll get rid of him from/. I was mistaken in the past about letting him stay here - I apologize, I cringe.
Katz argues at least two unsupported and illogical things:
The gap between the middle and lower-classes will close: Just because Ford hands out computers to its employees? The people employed by Ford are already the "middle-class" - the real poor in this country are a lot worse off than those "lucky" enough to work for Ford
This is not the greedy corporatism that Katz has fearlessly railed against: Yet in the same article he says that Ford realized that a happy worker is a productive worker and that workers get pay raises when there's a labour shortage...hmm, let's connect the dots for him - at the moment there's a shortage of labour ( in the US at least) and this is a cheap way to make workers happy and get them to rely on the company for their personal communication more. Nope, definitely not greedy corporatism there.
Well, it ain't really feudal is it? Hopefully the your company doesn't allow the boss to exercise droit de seigneur, I mean it's one thing to have the company screwing you metaphorically, but to have the boss taking first shot on the wedding night?........
Sorry to trivialize. I agree totally with your point, we seem to be moving further and further into the corporatist model of society - wouldn't Benito, Adolf and Josef have been proud.
Most workers do have a right to strike, but this right is limited in some cases (like this one),
Well, actually, it's so restricted that it's not really much of a tool any more. It would be more accurate to say that "have a right to strike, but only in such a way that it's going to be damned ineffective"
This is not a story about corporate bullies,
Oh , I think it is - just because they are acting legally doesn't mean that they're acting morally.
Wake up Brento, according to the article "Business speech is not subject to the same protections as political speech,". No? I wonder if your real name is in fact......................Pollyanna?
Obviously there needs to be some kind of control - but this should be the employees' self-control and pure considerate behavior, Like not organizing demonstrations that are deemed to be illegal by the same legal system that decrees that it is permissible to search and seize the private property of employees. Come on! Who makes and implements the laws? Give you a hint: it's not the employees of this world. some things just shouldn't be done (like sharing trade secrets with competitors, bad-mouthing your company on company time/property Sharing trade secrets with competitors is a bit differnt to the other example there - a much more pithy way of putting would have been if you'd said: "some things just shouldn't be done (like sexually abusing children, bad-mouthing your company on company time/property, or organizing pesky union activities" With regard to your regulation screed, well, as far as I'm concerned we need more of it: regulation inspired, controlled, changed and created by the working people of this country, not by the freakin' bosses. I'm convinced that this will lead to letting: people have at the least basic freedom to do what they want on their own time with their own lives. Things that aren't dangerous to others shouldn't have to be regulated. I sympathize with the goal but disagree with the method because I don't think it will work.
I wonder what would happen if you did have encrypted data, they got a court order and you refused to supply a key? Wouldn't that be contempt of court, just like refusing to let the cops in the door to collect your own personal, private machine?
Others have abused you sufficiently and justly for your inattention to the words printed in front of you - I'd like to abuse you about something else. So, even given that there are laws that say that the company that employs you can read your email, monitor your phone calls and read your mail, do you think that is good and right? Do you not think that it inhibits the ability of employees to organize effectively to maintain or improve their working conditions? In short, are you a manager or a fool?
The implication of the placing of the quote in the article was that the criticism of a business is not protected by the same rights as any other form of speech - it specifically mentions recent court rulings against criticism of companies and management. This is different to your definition of commercial speech and far more irritating.
It would be wrong of me to buy walmart.com with the expressed purpose of selling it to Walmart for an obscene amout of money.[...]nder current (and recent) U.S. law the first and third examples are illegal (IANAL though)
Is it really? I have to say that I find it bizarre if this is true. What's the difference between me getting in and buying anything first with a view to selling it later and domain names? I am pretty much against profiteering and capitalism in general , but if we're going to have it then let's do it fairly. I find this absurd if it is true! Why should someone be able to take out copyright protection for a medium that didn't exist before they took out the copyright protection?!
I'd probably auction it off as well, bound to make more money that way. Hard to tell about the "fair, honest and open" though - it all depends on the ethical system that you adhere to. This is where the original question of the poster comes in, First, the general: what is the real difference between cyber-squatting and legitimate domain brokering Given that this is all based on an analogy with real-estate it's interesting to note what the arguments around real-estate squatting are: basically most squatters claim that there is an artificial shortage of housing caused by property speculators who drive up prices and keep empty houses out of the pool. As a result many families at the lower end of the scale can't afford to buy or rent. This was especially the case in London (UK) during the seventies with the ironic twist that one of the worst culprits was the council, who had 50,000 or so empty properties that needed minor repairs. As a result self-help squatting associations started with people moving in and fixing the properties themselves. The alternative was living in temporary accomodation rented for them by the council, such as B&B or hotels - pretty impermanent and unsatisfactory for family life. The right to do this was based on 17th century laws that decreed that as land was in such short supply if it was not used for a certain period of time, then obviously it was not essential to the survival of the person that owned it and thus was free to whoever wanted to work it. I'm not sure whether the physical analogy holds for the net. But as there are obviously a restricted number of desirable names it probably does, I haven't really thought about it though, so I stand ready to be corrected. If it does hold then I quite agree with the idea that if it's not in use then it should be put back into the pool for whoever wants it. Note that this is not the same as an endorsement of the practice of cyber-squatting which is just the same as a group of squatters running about looking for houses to squat to sell later for profit. Yes, this unfortunately does happen and I disagree with it although I have great sympathy and support for someone that just wants somewhere to live.
While I agree totally with your rebuttal of the 3-point argument above you are wrong and Raymond is wrong about Hitler's vote, if you quote him correctly. The July 1932 election saw the Nazi's receive a 37.3 percent vote (13.7 million) - this was the highest that they ever won, this is not an overwhelming election, this is a minority of the population.
Again, remember that I freely admitted I could be full of shit, this time, but someday it's going to happen for real. Well, you're not the only one that hopes there's going to be changes;-)
Now the vandals are attacking the bloodthirsty marketers, and using the most non-damaging method they can. Or, is it the safest method that they can? Speaking for myself, I would choose the way that was less likely to get me caught. This is the equivalent of a blockade--a formal, organised protest. You reckon? Where's the statement of intent then? A protest without any aim is just similar to throwing rocks through any old window (what's so wrong with rocks through the right window anyway?) which is simply vandalism. Just because we dislike the commercialism doesn't mean that we have to cheer senseless, purposeless acts. Also, this may give an impetus to all the controlling tendencies - do you not think this is more likely to damage freedom on the net than promote it? A revolution without a goal, without a hope of success, without a plan, without sincerity is just an invitation to be hurt for no purpose.
The "update" posted by michael is sorta weird. It posits an unnecessary complicity between the NSA and anonymous hackers just because there is "no known motive". What about this just being a few people having kicks and not thinking about the consequences? Are all the unsolved murders that happen every year part of a plot by law-enforcement agencies to get greater powers?
This attack is not totally surprising (yeah I'm great at hindsight) and as is pointed out in many of the articles about it there have been many smaller scale attacks recently, the only reason this one is making the news is because it's ramped up to inconvenience lots of people at the same time - so, the powers that be were probably dissatisfied with the small attacks already and thus were looking for more control over our distributed, liberatory, co-operative etc. network.
If anything this shoes the incompatibility between a shared resource that relies on co-operative behaviour from its participants and the need for control and security that business has.
This is just the final stage of the net being fucked by commercialism - they need control and oversight. The net is turning into something new, something controlled by people with very different aspirations, people who only want to make money, people who can't afford this sort of thing.
Penrose's primary argument has nothing to do with quantum physics
Yes, but he does make a great play on the idea that because the synapses of neurons are affected by neurofibrils there is a "quantum influence". This is supposed to be so, because it has been observed that the final 3D conformation of neurofibrils is determnined by the position of a single electron - hence it is determined by quantum mechanics. That is what I was referring to, and I don't think I said it was Penrose's primary argument?
I sympathise and all with your emotional response, and I think it's probable that there are no dissenters that this is a Bad Thing(TM). But I've got to disagree that what needs to be done is to ask one gang of oppressive governments to heel in another one. That applies to both the issues of Chechnya and other immediate wars and the issues of civil liberties.
The U.S. and all its partners, as is pointed out in the article is up to the same tricks with Echelon, the only distinction being that there is no monetary damage caused to the ISPs by Echelon. I found that a really weird quote from the Washington policy wonk - sort of like talking about the difference between two muggers "Hey A is better than B because A just beats up his victims but B beats them up and then demands a quarter!". Yeah, it's true it's worse but it's a slim difference and if it's being used to justify calling on A to intervene on one's behalf against B then it's just plain dumb.
The only way we're going to ensure our rights and liberties is if we are organized and active and there's no place to start like home - join the EFF or some other citizen based organization that will lead the way under your direction - don't expect any government from above to do anything for you. When we've got our own house straightened out then the rest of the world will have to do its own thing. Democracy begins at home and our lack of it has created a shattered, starving Russia run by the freaking mafia.
The same sort of deal applies to human rights in other countries, I find it sickening to hear our leaders making crying noises about human rights in China when we're busy stuffing weapons into the hands of genocidal fuckers in Indonesia. If they were saying that they were going to stop sending military and financial aid to tyrants I'd be happier, but complaining about this sort of thing just preserves the illusion that the problem is with other countries.
OK, another area of specialty added! I'm setting up a mailing list so that we can talk among ourselves about this. I have looked at Squishdot and am undecided as to the relative merits. One thing we'd discussed already was trying to send files compressed to speed up transfer rates especially if graphics are going to be a big part of this.
You know what? They left out one very important thing: quantum mechanics
Seriously, I mean they got just about everything else in there:
feminism
anarchism
the military
the orient
raves
capitalism
computers
culture
I really took issue with the statement that drugs would expand your bandwidth and increase your processing power. There's no evidence for that. They alter effect sure, but theres no real evidence for increased information processing. I forget who said it, talking about the use of drugs to treat schizophrenia, but the comparison made was that in the past we did trepanning[*], then we locked people up, then we electroshocked them and now we use a chemical lobotomy. * - yeah, I've actually heard that some people get trepanning for recreational reasons now - some sort of high if it's done over the right area of the brain. I don't know if it's true.
Slashdot Mirror
The surging popularity of Linux has been partially attributed to the fact that the programming code is exposed, or open, and can be customized by users. As a result, IT managers can obtain an efficiently tailored OS that also costs less. The OS is more popular in low-end file and print servers or slim servers stacked up by the dozen rather than the expensive multiprocessor machines where Unix currently prevails.
I love the distinction between Linux and Unix!
It's interesting that the paragraphs below this talk about "Unix" making up about 53% of the revenue ~ 3 billion. What are the systems that are so expensive even though they are only ~0.8 million (15%) of market-share? Sun, DEC, HP, SGI? They must have appalling licence fees.
Likewise for advertising etc, all that goes towards raising the price of the product. I'd rather see a simple technical detailing of the merits of the product and then I'll decide between them on a rational basis - screw clever superbowl ads
I think I've noticed you posting this point before and I agree with it - but I draw different conclusions from it than you do. The money flows inn investment patterns, people get little cuts of it if they're small guys providing services. Those services they provide are creating real value, it's productive, they make something (knowledege or material), they labour. They add to the world by work. However, BillG (as an example) controls the flow of the money and takes the labour that this little guy does. He allows him to have as little of it as he can (enough to satisfy his lowly needs for a Lexus and a nice PC and a mortgage and health-care) as determined by how many other people can do the labour that little guy can. With the excess labour skimmed from this guy and many others like him Bill G is able to control the labour market, the policies of the government and the social conditions (to be sure there are limits to this and it needs the aquiesence and complicity of the little guy - otherwise you get a revolution) and the media (good propaganda is necessary to make sure that the little guy gets a picture of the world that makes him believe that this is the best way). So the money definitely doesn't lie idle in the simplistic sense that Katz would have it, nor yet is it simply flowing through BillG's hands and into the hands of his technicians and plumbers without any other effect.
The gap between the middle and lower-classes will close:
He's talking about what has been called the "Digital Divide".
Specifically he's talking about employees of Ford, and he sees this beneficence being extended to other corporations enabling their employees to have these machines - most of the people working for these companies could afford $300 to get an old 486 and shove Linux on it.
I consider phrases like the digital divide, which formulate the inequality in society as being due to possession/non-possession of a particular material thing, to obscure the real divide - power/non-power. It is true that the particular thing is lacking and that this is bad for those people but it's not the root cause. This leads to the next point that you make:
the gap may not close, but every step closer is a good thing.
It's more of a moving target - by the time the masses have PC's the expensive, power delivering new thing will be there and guess what - poor people won't have it. It's like looking back to the turn of the century and talking about how soon everyone will have a car (oh wait, he did that didn't he?, that was part of Ford's wonderful legacy) and this will enhance mobility. Looked great then, but right now would you rather sit in traffic like everyone else or use your small, private air-craft?
Katz sure is flip-flopping - it's because his analysis is trite and based upon unrealities, so he blows with the winds of fashion.
What happened to Katz, fearless crusader against globalization?
Well, it's like this see - Mr.Katz isn't very smart and he hasn't followed any of the discussions in the Free Software community about free(beer) vs. Free (speech), so when something like this rolls around he's easily confused. Basically, like a lot of whiners against globalism his beef is that he isn't getting any - if he were a little richer then he would re-adjust his psyche and arguments to the view that the world was a good place. I hereby swear NEVER to post about or read Katz articles again, that's the only way we'll get rid of him from /. I was mistaken in the past about letting him stay here - I apologize, I cringe.
Just because Ford hands out computers to its employees? The people employed by Ford are already the "middle-class" - the real poor in this country are a lot worse off than those "lucky" enough to work for Ford
Yet in the same article he says that Ford realized that a happy worker is a productive worker and that workers get pay raises when there's a labour shortage...hmm, let's connect the dots for him - at the moment there's a shortage of labour ( in the US at least) and this is a cheap way to make workers happy and get them to rely on the company for their personal communication more. Nope, definitely not greedy corporatism there.
That makes it a little clearer - hope that you get MODERATED UP because this is a nice clear post.
Thanks, Crush
Sorry to trivialize. I agree totally with your point, we seem to be moving further and further into the corporatist model of society - wouldn't Benito, Adolf and Josef have been proud.
Most workers do have a right to strike, but this right is limited in some cases (like this one),
Well, actually, it's so restricted that it's not really much of a tool any more. It would be more accurate to say that "have a right to strike, but only in such a way that it's going to be damned ineffective"
This is not a story about corporate bullies,
Oh , I think it is - just because they are acting legally doesn't mean that they're acting morally.
Wake up Brento, according to the article "Business speech is not subject to the same protections as political speech,". No? I wonder if your real name is in fact......................Pollyanna?
Obviously there needs to be some kind of control - but this should be the employees' self-control and pure considerate behavior, :
Like not organizing demonstrations that are deemed to be illegal by the same legal system that decrees that it is permissible to search and seize the private property of employees. Come on! Who makes and implements the laws? Give you a hint: it's not the employees of this world.
some things just shouldn't be done (like sharing trade secrets with competitors, bad-mouthing your company on company time/property
Sharing trade secrets with competitors is a bit differnt to the other example there - a much more pithy way of putting would have been if you'd said:
"some things just shouldn't be done (like sexually abusing children, bad-mouthing your company on company time/property, or organizing pesky union activities"
With regard to your regulation screed, well, as far as I'm concerned we need more of it: regulation inspired, controlled, changed and created by the working people of this country, not by the freakin' bosses. I'm convinced that this will lead to letting
people have at the least basic freedom to do what they want on their own time with their own lives. Things that aren't dangerous to others shouldn't have to be regulated.
I sympathize with the goal but disagree with the method because I don't think it will work.
I wonder what would happen if you did have encrypted data, they got a court order and you refused to supply a key? Wouldn't that be contempt of court, just like refusing to let the cops in the door to collect your own personal, private machine?
Well, I just sent them a polite letter to let them know that I disapprove of their actions. Hopefully more will follow.
Others have abused you sufficiently and justly for your inattention to the words printed in front of you - I'd like to abuse you about something else. So, even given that there are laws that say that the company that employs you can read your email, monitor your phone calls and read your mail, do you think that is good and right? Do you not think that it inhibits the ability of employees to organize effectively to maintain or improve their working conditions? In short, are you a manager or a fool?
The implication of the placing of the quote in the article was that the criticism of a business is not protected by the same rights as any other form of speech - it specifically mentions recent court rulings against criticism of companies and management. This is different to your definition of commercial speech and far more irritating.
It would be wrong of me to buy walmart.com with the expressed purpose of selling it to Walmart for an obscene amout of money.[...]nder current (and recent) U.S. law the first and third examples are illegal (IANAL though)
Is it really? I have to say that I find it bizarre if this is true. What's the difference between me getting in and buying anything first with a view to selling it later and domain names? I am pretty much against profiteering and capitalism in general , but if we're going to have it then let's do it fairly. I find this absurd if it is true! Why should someone be able to take out copyright protection for a medium that didn't exist before they took out the copyright protection?!
I'd probably auction it off as well, bound to make more money that way.
Hard to tell about the "fair, honest and open" though - it all depends on the ethical system that you adhere to. This is where the original question of the poster comes in, First, the general: what is the real difference between cyber-squatting and legitimate domain brokering
Given that this is all based on an analogy with real-estate it's interesting to note what the arguments around real-estate squatting are: basically most squatters claim that there is an artificial shortage of housing caused by property speculators who drive up prices and keep empty houses out of the pool. As a result many families at the lower end of the scale can't afford to buy or rent. This was especially the case in London (UK) during the seventies with the ironic twist that one of the worst culprits was the council, who had 50,000 or so empty properties that needed minor repairs. As a result self-help squatting associations started with people moving in and fixing the properties themselves. The alternative was living in temporary accomodation rented for them by the council, such as B&B or hotels - pretty impermanent and unsatisfactory for family life.
The right to do this was based on 17th century laws that decreed that as land was in such short supply if it was not used for a certain period of time, then obviously it was not essential to the survival of the person that owned it and thus was free to whoever wanted to work it.
I'm not sure whether the physical analogy holds for the net. But as there are obviously a restricted number of desirable names it probably does, I haven't really thought about it though, so I stand ready to be corrected.
If it does hold then I quite agree with the idea that if it's not in use then it should be put back into the pool for whoever wants it.
Note that this is not the same as an endorsement of the practice of cyber-squatting which is just the same as a group of squatters running about looking for houses to squat to sell later for profit. Yes, this unfortunately does happen and I disagree with it although I have great sympathy and support for someone that just wants somewhere to live.
While I agree totally with your rebuttal of the 3-point argument above you are wrong and Raymond is wrong about Hitler's vote, if you quote him correctly.
The July 1932 election saw the Nazi's receive a 37.3 percent vote (13.7 million) - this was the highest that they ever won, this is not an overwhelming election, this is a minority of the population.
Again, remember that I freely admitted I could be full of shit, this time, but someday it's going to happen for real. ;-)
Well, you're not the only one that hopes there's going to be changes
Now the vandals are attacking the bloodthirsty marketers, and using the most non-damaging method they can.
Or, is it the safest method that they can? Speaking for myself, I would choose the way that was less likely to get me caught.
This is the equivalent of a blockade--a formal, organised protest.
You reckon? Where's the statement of intent then? A protest without any aim is just similar to throwing rocks through any old window (what's so wrong with rocks through the right window anyway?) which is simply vandalism.
Just because we dislike the commercialism doesn't mean that we have to cheer senseless, purposeless acts. Also, this may give an impetus to all the controlling tendencies - do you not think this is more likely to damage freedom on the net than promote it? A revolution without a goal, without a hope of success, without a plan, without sincerity is just an invitation to be hurt for no purpose.
This attack is not totally surprising (yeah I'm great at hindsight) and as is pointed out in many of the articles about it there have been many smaller scale attacks recently, the only reason this one is making the news is because it's ramped up to inconvenience lots of people at the same time - so, the powers that be were probably dissatisfied with the small attacks already and thus were looking for more control over our distributed, liberatory, co-operative etc. network.
If anything this shoes the incompatibility between a shared resource that relies on co-operative behaviour from its participants and the need for control and security that business has.
This is just the final stage of the net being fucked by commercialism - they need control and oversight. The net is turning into something new, something controlled by people with very different aspirations, people who only want to make money, people who can't afford this sort of thing.
Penrose's primary argument has nothing to do with quantum physics
Yes, but he does make a great play on the idea that because the synapses of neurons are affected by neurofibrils there is a "quantum influence". This is supposed to be so, because it has been observed that the final 3D conformation of neurofibrils is determnined by the position of a single electron - hence it is determined by quantum mechanics. That is what I was referring to, and I don't think I said it was Penrose's primary argument?
The U.S. and all its partners, as is pointed out in the article is up to the same tricks with Echelon, the only distinction being that there is no monetary damage caused to the ISPs by Echelon. I found that a really weird quote from the Washington policy wonk - sort of like talking about the difference between two muggers "Hey A is better than B because A just beats up his victims but B beats them up and then demands a quarter!". Yeah, it's true it's worse but it's a slim difference and if it's being used to justify calling on A to intervene on one's behalf against B then it's just plain dumb.
The only way we're going to ensure our rights and liberties is if we are organized and active and there's no place to start like home - join the EFF or some other citizen based organization that will lead the way under your direction - don't expect any government from above to do anything for you. When we've got our own house straightened out then the rest of the world will have to do its own thing. Democracy begins at home and our lack of it has created a shattered, starving Russia run by the freaking mafia.
The same sort of deal applies to human rights in other countries, I find it sickening to hear our leaders making crying noises about human rights in China when we're busy stuffing weapons into the hands of genocidal fuckers in Indonesia. If they were saying that they were going to stop sending military and financial aid to tyrants I'd be happier, but complaining about this sort of thing just preserves the illusion that the problem is with other countries.
Great to see the interest! Keep it coming!
Regards
Crush.
Ah, thanks. I guess the old recall is going! Do you remember who the Joy Division guy was?
Seriously, I mean they got just about everything else in there:
I really took issue with the statement that drugs would expand your bandwidth and increase your processing power. There's no evidence for that. They alter effect sure, but theres no real evidence for increased information processing.
I forget who said it, talking about the use of drugs to treat schizophrenia, but the comparison made was that in the past we did trepanning[*], then we locked people up, then we electroshocked them and now we use a chemical lobotomy. * - yeah, I've actually heard that some people get trepanning for recreational reasons now - some sort of high if it's done over the right area of the brain. I don't know if it's true.