The cynics I've known were convinced that all human behavior was motivated wholly by self-interest, which, even if it is true in an ultimate sense, is an attitude guaranteed to close your mind.
Y.M. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that your scheme and the other schemes aim at and produce the same result-- RIGHT LIVING--has yours an advantage over the others?
O.M. One, yes--a large one. It has no concealments, no deceptions. When a man leads a right and valuable life under it he is not deceived as to the REAL chief motive which impels him to it--in those other cases he is.
Y.M. Is that an advantage? Is it an advantage to live a lofty life for a mean reason? In the other cases he lives the lofty life under the IMPRESSION that he is living for a lofty reason. Is not that an advantage?
O.M. Perhaps so. The same advantage he might get out of thinking himself a duke, and living a duke's life and parading in ducal fuss and feathers, when he wasn't a duke at all, and could find it out if he would only examine the herald's records.
And continuing later on...
Y.M. Then you believe that such tendency toward doing good as is in men's hearts would not be diminished by the removal of the delusion that good deeds are done primarily for the sake of No. 2 instead of for the sake of No. 1?
O.M. That is what I fully believe.
Y.M. Doesn't it somehow seem to take from the dignity of the deed?
O.M. If there is dignity in falsity, it does. It removes that.
Y.M. What is left for the moralists to do?
O.M. Teach unreservedly what he already teaches with one side of his mouth and takes back with the other: Do right FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, and be happy in knowing that your NEIGHBOR will certainly share in the benefits resulting.
Y.M. Repeat your Admonition.
O.M. DILIGENTLY TRAIN YOUR IDEALS UPWARD AND STILL UPWARD TOWARD A SUMMIT WHERE YOU WILL FIND YOUR CHIEFEST PLEASURE IN CONDUCT WHICH, WHILE CONTENTING YOU, WILL BE SURE TO CONFER BENEFITS UPON YOUR NEIGHBOR AND THE COMMUNITY.
I recommend reading the whole essay, "What is Man".
If more people were cynics, the world would not only remove charlatans (though incidentally, I'm quite happy with charlatans who rob robbers; It's much better than people who aid and assist robbers for a days wages), but the world would be full of wonderful friendly people.
What is a cynic? As far as I can tell, a cynic is a person who is a realist and an idealist.
To be a cynic, you have to be a realist. You've already helped demonstrate that, when you wote "even if it is true in an ultimate sense". A realist looking at human behavior will give that serious attention, and meditate deeply on its consequences, as has Mark Twain.
But to be a cynic, you also have to be an idealist. That seems contradictory; How's that? Because in order to complain about the way things are, you have to have some idea of how things should be. You have to be an idealist.
If you are a realist but not an idealist, you become someone who is content ripping people off, or just doing whatever you need to survive, the effects of whatever it is be damned. This describes 90% of people, I believe. Perhaps 10-20% of people are content ripping others off, the other 70-80% are quite happy just doing whatever they need to do in order to survive comfortably, effects on others be damned. Being a Realist while discarding ideals is what gives the Right a bad name.
If you are an idealist but not a realist, you run the danger of trying to do good things, but failing miserably, because you are out of touch with reality. At worst, such failure can be dangerous. Being an Idealist while discarding reality is what gives the Left a bad name.
When you have both Idealism and Realism, you are a Cynic.
Incidentally, there is a name for what effective Cynics are called- that name is "SAINT".
Did Mark Twain reach Sainthood? In my eyes, Yes, because he has had a very powerful positive influence on my life, and the lives of many others, even beyond death.
Every time, he wore out his partners -- rich partners like Blockbuster and Intel, prominent partners like former U.S. Sen. Paula Hawkins and the son of Atlanta media czar Ted Turner, partners who brought him to Silicon Valley and partners who brought him to Capitol Hill.
Okay; How about instead of having the computer do the book keeping for the player, the player still does the book keeping, but the player uses a calculator to do the addition and subtraction?
Now lets say that the calculator has a memory key...
That's odd; I lived in California for 21 years, and food prices were never difficult. I live in Washington now; When I was in California, I thought that I noticed that food cost less.
I'm rather happy that the people behind the checkout stand make $20/hr, rather than the $10 or $11/hr that I imagine that they would make otherwise. I haven't noticed the price difference.
I have heard that the US phone companies store the telephone switching computers in carefully unmarked basements of various public buildings in the areas where they are performing switching.
I have also heard that these are typically UNIX systems, and- get this- your phone number represents a series of cd ("cd", as in "change directory") operations into a file tree.
So for example, if your phone number is 547-9510, then information about connecting to you is stored in directory..../5/4/7/9/5/1/0/
I don't know if any of this is true, but I have heard it from a person who has business knowing such things, and it sounds plausible to me. =^_^=
Reply if you know better. Just a tangential tidbit.
Long Life& Lion's Side Rant on Chemistry &
on
The Next Generation
·
· Score: 2
Just for fun, I'd like to show something.
Here's a quote from the story:
Antidotes to aging are becoming big business. George Roth, chief of molecular physiology and genetics at the National Institute on Aging, counts some 40 recent scientist-run start-ups seeking to reverse aging. Not stop aging, but reverse it. Most of these companies are looking for life-extending genes.
Now here's a quote from my Chemistry book:
...What started as a mystical search for spiritual properties in matter evolved over a thousand years into an obsession with potions to bestow eternal youth and elixirs to transmute "baser" metals, such as lead, into "purer" ones, such as gold.
-Silberberg, Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter and Change
Unlike today's pure science?
Which has researched aging in order to slow it down, and turned iron into the "stronger" steel?
It always ticks me off how modern Chemistry people are so eager to diss their intellectual ancestry. Yeah, like the Alchemists of yore were supposed to know that there weren't spirits living in trees, or that metals didn't embody healing properties. How were they supposed to know? As far as people knew, the Gods where in the heavens, the Demons were in the ground, and the Monsters were in the seas. How can we be on such a high horse, when we ourselves have benefitted from thousands of years of research? How can we stomp on the Alchemists, when they themselves contributed so much to early Chemical research? They did intensive cataloging and discovery of substances, they collected work into papers, they invinted chemical methods. But, Silberberg is quick to tell us, "Alchemy's legacy to chemistry is mixed at best."
Start with a book. Turn it into a choose your own adventure. Protected?
Now make it a little more sophisticated; Something like "Grail Quest". It has the player keep track of things like inventory and health and armor, but is still a choose-your-own adventure. Protected?
Okay, now lets take the SAME exact thing, but have a computer do the book keeping for the player. Protected?
Now lets make it a little more sophisticated, but still wordy, like Zork. Protected?
Replace wordy imagery with the occasional ASCII graphic. Protected?
Give the user a map, like in Zork Zero (if I recall correctly). Protected?
Use the map primarily, and the text secondarily, like in NetHack. Protected?
Apply better graphics, like the graphic ports of NetHack. Protected?
Give the user a first person perspective in the maze, Ultima Underworld or something like that. Protected?
It is a SMOOTH continuum from books to games. I can take any game, and gradually transform it into a book, and any book and gradually transform it into a game.
Give me any two expressions, one slightly more interactive than the other, and I can construct an expression in between.
Evidently, the something-for-everyone model epitomized by Heathkit and the Amateur Scientist column can't compete anymore. Specialized sources and Internet newsgroups cater to each skill level. But much of the mentoring and serendipity that the diverse community of amateurs offered has been lost. It is hard not to regret its passing.
What an idiot. We have just largely stopped using magazines in light of the Internet.
Look at these books! Look at them! All Free, as in Liberty AND No-Cost. These are some of the very best books I have found on electronics, on-line or off. Forest Mims the Third, eat your heart out.
Do we want to talk about mentoring and serendipity?
It was out of frustration that I compiled Lessons in Electric Circuits from notes and ideas I had been collecting for years. My primary goal was to put readable, high-quality information into the hands of my students, but a secondary goal was to make the book as affordable as possible. Over the years, I had experienced the benefit of receiving free instruction and encouragement in my pursuit of learning electronics from many people, including several teachers of mine in elementary and high school. Their selfless assistance played a key role in my own studies, paving the way for a rewarding career and fascinating hobby. If only I could extend the gift of their help by giving to other people what they gave to me . . .
There you go.
If anything, I'd say that amateur science and learning and construction is more popular now, because it is more accessible.
It just doesn't take the form of magazine articles.
MICROSOFT is AGRESSIVELY trying to get people to not like the GPL. It is a propaganda campaign, and a strategic campaign. What do you think about that?
On one side, there is a miniature dictatorship, a company, that regularly uses anti-competitive measures while hiding behind capitalist rhetoric (which itself RELIES ON competition).
On the other, a huge federation of Free developers giving away their code for free, acceoted on the condition that modifications to that code are also made free (& Free).
It seems pretty clear to me which side are the "good guys" and which side are the "bad guys", especially when Microsoft has a proven history of unethical actions (such as in court and in marketting propaganda) and anti-competitive practices.
I don't understand why you are taking the wrong side here.
Do you support power to the elite (aristocracy), or power to the people (democracy)?
Judging by your rhetoric ("Welcome to the Real World", which I am interpreting here as "Welcome to dog-eat-dog unjust cruelty, which I am about to defend"), it seems pretty clear to me that you hold aristocratic notions of how people are to be manipulated and governed, rather than democratic notions of equity and Freedom.
And as for your talk about the dangers of 0-cost software, I repeat the sentiment of another [scornful!] slashdot poster: "Yer honer, they can't sell it *that* low! I'll go out of business!"
Over at Kuro5hin, the site is pretty much paid for by user placed ads.
The difference between user text ads and corporate ads is amazing. There is a lot of fun in the top-left corner of the screen, where the ads sit. You can also comment on most ads (there is an option to prohibit commenting, but it is rarely used), as if they were stories.
We Kuro5hin-ers are quite happy with our ad system.
I have a nice seat here at the corporate office for you and your ethical conscience. Can I interest you hiring you to find out how to manipulate people's consumer behavior into letting us exploit them?
Which seems more likely:
Situation A: It is largely the fault of everyone you know- your mother, your father, your brothers and sisters, your daughters and sons. Most everyone is to blame. When your mom got her Yahoo account, she should have fully research the implications of her online contracts. She should not only check "Don't send me unsolicited email", but she should also call up Yahoo to make sure that Yahoo won't try to advertise to her by phone, either.
Or situation B. Admit that we have better things to do, and that we expect- no, rely on, moral behavior from the people we do business with. That there are unspoken agreements to be followed. That even though your mom gave some information to get $5.00 off from a book sale, that she doesn't really expect, nor want, to have that information sold and resold.
Perhaps if the tradeoffs were more clearly written, your mom wouldn't have made the trade, but years of market research have shown that subtly describing is better than overtly saying, and your mom got conned. You have been conned, unless you defend such conning, and as such, carefully read every contract with a fine comb. Remember- Marketing: It's not persuasion, It's product awareness. (gleam!)
"It's right for others to be scammed, because they don't do the work to make sure that they themselves aren't scammed. They've got what's coming to them." Empowering. Indeed. That's right- everyone YOU know is a slacker. Your friend the pot head. Your friend the sports fan. Your friend the raver. Your friend the dad. Your friend the child. Slackers- all of them. If they give out their information, they've got what's comming to them.
Ahhh.. Someone who believes in the dollar vote. Yes, we like your belief in the dollar vote, and will elevate your papers with prestige and glory. You may even wine and dine with us, we like your ideology so much.
A handful of discriminating geeks may end their Yahoo accounds, but are people going to leave en masse?
The TrustE program is rooted in the ideology of anarcho-Capitalism, the idea that a free society can come about through the abolition of all government, and the aggressive privatization of everything, including courts and militaries. (Less aggressive Libertarians are generally minarchist, and believe that it's probably best to let government have the courts and the military, in order to best protect property.)
The anarcho-capitalist argument usually goes something like that: Government intervention is not only bad for business (and thus, you and me), but it's also immoral. But people do not need government to be safe; They can rely on the market for protection. It is beneficial to the market to protect you, since there is obviously a demand for protection.
There are many problems with these notions, but anarcho-Capitalists, generally intelligent people have an affinity for axiomatic theories (in this cased, based in the notion of contracts).
How does the theory fail? It's not too difficult to find out, if you aren't an anarcho-capitalist yourself. All you need to do is look at a failing of the market to protect people, and trace it to its source.
For example, Yahoo just recently changed their privacy policy, for the worst. Let's accept as fact that the majority of people don't like this, since its hit Slashdot and most people are bitter about it. How did Yahoo do that? According to the New York Times article, they have played on the exact lettering of their contract. Yahoo pledged that it would not email its users, but did they say they would not telephone? No, they never said they would not do that.
How has anarcho-capitalism failed here? Anarcho-capitalists would have said that we are kept safe by the competition of privacy policies. There would have been, say, 5 yahoo's, all slightly different, and one would have had a better privacy policy. I don't know how the anarcho-capitalist would respond to the complaint that we want to use services, not read contracts and theorize about them all day (for example, "They say they won't contact me by email, but they might call me by telephone! I better inform Yahoo that their contract needs work before I'm willing to sign it..!").
Note Esther Dyson's complaint, supporting this notion:
On that note, Dyson doesn't think the blame lies solely at the feet of Truste or its clients.
"I've also been disappointed in consumers," she said, "in that they've not been proactive in protecting their own data. You do a survey and consumers say they are very concerned about their privacy. Then you offer them a discount on a book and they'll tell you everything." (Wired story, page 2)
In other words, it's our fault, because we don't think about contracts in full. The problem is that contracts do not accurately reflect what we want. We are irrational beings, which chops at the root of anarcho-capitalist thinking. But rather than ammend their philosophy to take into account consumer behavior (which companies are eager to take advantage of; Look at any college textbook on the subject), they insist that consumer behavior is wrong, and that absolute contract-based theory is right.
Going back to Anarcho-capitalists believing in a competition of privacy policies: Unfortunately, there are not 5 yahoo's. (If there are, we don't know about it.) Why is that? That's probably very complicated to answer, but my guess is that it has to do with branding. And when you have advertising/branding strategies in place to get people to use your business, there is almost always room for only 1, 2, maybe 3 companies in people's heads. But very rarely do I ever see the role of advertising and people's ability to recall brands appearing in anarcho-capitalist literature. In anarcho-capitalist literature, we are all perfectly rational beings who have all the time in the world to investigate every contract and extrapolate it's meaning in purely legalistic terms.
Web surfers, [Esther Dyson's] reasoning went, would read the various companies' policies themselves and make their own choices, letting companies use privacy policies as a competitive differentiator. Truste's seal would simply ensure that the policy was being followed, so that "between two sites I've never heard of, I'd rather pick the one that has the Truste logo," she explained.
--Wired (Notice the implicit necessity for competition, and the assumed assumption of TrustE actually working.)
But we're not even at the main story here, which is about TrustE. TrustE is born almost completely out of anarcho-capitalist theory. Indeed, when I worked at a dot-com (now failed), the owner of the company (and big-time Madrona investor) told us how excited he was to participate in TrustE, which was going to show to the world how anarcho-capitalist protections work for everybody. What is the program?
TrustE fills the role in the anarcho-capitalist dream of a market response to the demand for safety. It works like this: Companies pay TrustE in order to have a seal that proves that they are going to play nice. TrustE in turn watches over the company, and makes sure that they are doing right by what they said they would do. The moment the company tries to do anything wrong, TrustE slaps them by removing their brand from the Company.
Systems like these are proposed by anarcho-capitalists in order to remove the entire government. For example: The justice system. There would be a number of competing courts, and the ones with a good reputation and contract would be utilized by people to try their cases. The military and police forces- if one wasn't nice to people, we'll all just hire another to protect us. To be fair, Libertarians don't go quite as far as the anarcho-Capitalists in this respect, the Libertarians just want to have no government/military regulation except of military force. (I find it likely though, that the government would act in the interest of the corporate interests, and not in the public interests; It is said that "Property is 9/10's of the Law". Undoubtably, people crushed by non-violent anarcho-capitalist market rule would want to / need to violate some property laws, and thus have the weight of the establishment upon them, in full military force.)
How do these systems fail? In precisely the ways that critics say that they will fail. Obviously TrustE wants people's money, so it is already biased to certify companies. I suspect that more importantly, it wants to be seen as actually meaning something (lest everyone stop using them), and thus it doesn't want to de-list its most famous clients. Should Yahoo be delisted, Amazon might feel like delisting. Should the big names fall, everyone would fall.
Anarcho-Capitalists need to learn this method. It's not based in axiomatic derivation, which is clean, but rather, in analysis of real world situations. Anarcho-capitalists extrapolate all kinds of things from their initial set of perfectly rational contract-analyzing citizens. Unfortunately, when we look at real world systems, we find that anarcho-capitalist theory has no value.
Anarcho-Capitalists need to think about this very carefully, and act accordingly. Again, in brief, the method is this: Take a limited set of clear ideas. Extrapolate from them. Then check those ideas against reality around you. How do the ideas fail? Is it reasonable to expect that the failing will reoccur, or is this just a fluke? If they will reoccur, revise the ideas to match reality.
In closing, some choice quotes:
L IKE MANY Internet activists, Dyson is an unapologetic libertarian. For her, the true importance of the Internet is its potential to empower individuals against the forces of government. The dispersed nature of the World Wide Web enables individuals (and businesses) to avoid physical jurisdiction, and the ability of users to communicate freely can foster a kind of free-market democracy that leans on the side of citizens, not legislators.
(Esther Dyson, we can at least vote against the government. How will we protect ourselves from companies..? Dollar votes have proven not to work, the companies research our behaviors too well. You have seen yourself that it does not work. Shall we just be screwed; Are we getting our just deserts for being human?)
. The core of this initiative was the TRUSTe Privacy Seal, a visual symbol that could be displayed by Web sites that met the program?s requirements for data gathering and dissemination practices, and agreed to participate in its dispute resolution process. TRUSTe?s goal was to establish a seal that would send a clear signal to consumers that they could expect companies to adhere to certain requirements about the way Web sites handled data, and that an independent, third-party would hear and respond to their complaints and resolve their disputes.
It's interesting to study where the words come from. Unfortunately, I won't take the time to back up this claim, but "...independent, third-party would hear and respond to their complaints and resolve their disputes." comes straight out of the anarcho-capitalist literature on how to run a justice system by third-party companies, without a government..!
Well, young John Gaults of the world, TrustE has failed. This is a great opportunity for you to come forward with your own competing TrustE systems that will have better morals, and certify to the world the successes of your anarcho-capitalist philosophy.
Hm, I was pretty sure it was Flash Gordon (ooold sci-fi show) that the first Star Wars came from. You have Ming (Darth Vader), you have OB1-kenobi, you have Luke skywalker, you have OB1 going into the evil fortress and shutting down the defence shield from within... I forget if the Force was there or not.
Someone who has Flash Gordon memorized in their head, please post a better reply.
BTW, it is still appropriate to say that the work is related to Jospeph Campbell's, just as it would be appropriate to say that it was related to, say, Jung. That's because Joseph Campbell and Jung lay claim to wiiide territory and deep waters- pretty much anything in the realm of Myth, which includes Star Wars.
A bunch of U.S. games? The Japanese aren't into that. They like cute games and manga comic styles. I remember reading the creator of OddWorld saying something like, "We can't sell this game in Japan; No matter how you market it, you can't get around the fact that he's a green slime lizard with his mouth sewn shut! We put billboards everywhere- not a sale."
As far as I can tell, the Japanese don't really like our style of games (big big big monster trucks and skateboarders). And they've already infiltrated our culture with their games and style, which is, basically, Anime. Final Fantasy & Mario.
Who wants an X-Box, an oversized machine with gigantic controllers that basically runs trash US games? Maybe some 133t sk4ter d00dz or quake fanatics, but not the Japanese.
(This post generalizes. There are of course exceptions. But for the most part, I believe that this explanations holds true. =^_^=)
And kind slave owners that treated their slaves nicely were used as illustrations that the slavery situation was good for everybody, slaves included. We're all just one, big, happy family.
Of all of the Score 3+ articles I have seen here, this is the only one that accurately reflects what the so-called "anti-globalization" movement is all about. The remaining articles have no clue what it is about. This article should receive more attention.
I've heard of a band called 'stratosphere' or something in SF, CA, that does video game covers. Can anyone tell me about them? I don't think I have the name quite right.
No, I haven't read Marx. Actually, I haven't read Marx for a very explicit reason: I'd like to be able to say to people, "I haven't read Marx." This is primarily a political maneuver. There is a fear of anyone who has read Marx in certain circles, and I'd like to be able to talk with those people.
Given that, I have a friend who's a died in the wool Russian communist, and we argue very frequently, and with much shouting and rivalry. I have asked him to explain Marx's ideas to me, at least as best he understands it, and I have asked others the same.
Here is basically what I have learned (that is relevant to this conversation): There are three stages. The first is capitalism, and people eventually feel oppressed. Then there is a revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat rises to power. This middle stage is called "Socialism". Then finally the dictatorship dissolves itself, and you end up in a Communism.
I asked my friend what the Communism stage is like, and after he described it to me, I said, "Well, that's an Anarchy!" Regional democratic control of things, stuff like that. So, I understand that, and I agree with that point.
The trick is that middle stage, and that's where Anarchists and Communists disagree. The Communists insist on a dictatorship in the middle. I've
read some pretty scarry Maoist stuff in that respect. In fact, after the revelution in Russia, there were several communities that just skipped the middle stage. They went straight into Anarchism. But I have read that the "All power to the Soviets (Communities)" was betrayed, and they were taken, by force, into the State Communism. Because apparently the theory demanded it. They couldn't just go right into an Anarchy, they had to belong to the State first.
Anyways: This is how Marx has been described to me, and this is what I read, and how I interpret it.
As far as I can tell, power is never given up readily. It doesn't matter who's taking it, or receiving it, or whatever; It's just like the One Ring from Mordor. It's addictive, and terribly dangerous.
No "Revolution of the Proletariat" for me.
I don't know; Maybe I'm wrong about Marx. Maybe he didn't actually say that there should be those three stages. I haven't read him; This is just hearsay. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I should note- My Communist friend, who I spoke about earlier- he believes that the third stage, the Anarchy, what he called "Communism"- he thinks it's a mistake. He thinks that a government of the proletariat should rule. He thinks that it should never disband it's power. He is, basically, a Facist. He believes that a strong and powerful government should rule everything, and just "be nice".
Well, I don't know; There are a handful of Fascist systems that have worked. For example, Thailand is a Monarchy (not exactly facist, but it's close), and they have a great thing going- for the time being, with the current Emporer. No sarcasm- the people there really Love him, and with good cause; He's been, from what I understand, a fair and good guy. Everyone hates the congress, but they take their Emperor very seriously.
So I suppose if you get the good king out of a million, you're all right. But the vast majority are bad, and state communism, state capitalism, state whatever- I don't trust.
Anarchists and Communists, confused again. It has played over and over again.
Whenever there is a revolution, there are usually two principle revolutionary sides, Anarchists and Communists.
Both have similarities, and both have sharp differences. Generally, they both have socialist ends. But they differ on the nature of government: The Communists want strong central control. The Anarchists want deeply diffused democratic control.
The Free Software / Open Source movement is a case example of working Anarchy. Free Software developers are generally anti-authoritarian, and believe that the people doing the work call the shots. It's generally socialist, in the sense of sharing (but not in the Marx dictatorship sense). Work is done by a series of agreements and shared interest. Many are motivated to get particular things done, or out of a sense of solidarity. There is no ruler that can tell you what to do. Decisions are generally based on a consensus, but there are a few Linus Torvalds, and consessions made for expediency. The work has no chain of command, rather, it works by confederation. For example, there is the overall Open Source/Free Software movement. (We can draw humerous/interesting comparisons with the CNT/FAIR, respectively; One is more practically based, the other more ideologically based.) Above the OS/FS organization (in a certain sense), there is the KDE project. Above that platform lives the KOffice project. Above that lives the KWord, KSpread, and Kivio projects. I imagine that within those projects, there are other projects. And there are documentation projects, and usability projects, and they interact between projects, and they all work together. This is an Anarchist society, with minimal rulers and ruled. It is almost unthinkable that a member of the KDE organizing team would command a member of the KSpread team to do some particular thing, and that thing be done because of "orders from above". This is not to say that people don't argue and strategise and haggle; They do. But overall, the whole thing works. The operating system is a little "poor", and has a sort of "poor man's operating system" feel to it, but this is more than made up in the fun of it.
A communist vision of OS/FS would be state control. Flip the pyramid. OpenSource/FreeSoftware as command structure.
When you hear people saying, "I don't understand, why doesn't the OpenSource community devote most of it's effort to XYZ", where XYZ is something like better graphics, or device support, or something that they see as critical (and could quite likely use a lot more work), they are assuming that the OpenSource/FreeSoftware world works according to a command structure, and that we are working on it because we feel like suplicating ourselves to some "great cause." The reality is that we are not supplicating ourselves to some "great cause". Rather, we are doing it because we want to. This is Libertarian (the 1890's version of the word, which was anarcho-socialist, rather than the modern, anarco-capitalist meaning of the word) beliefs incarnate and applied: By acting on our natural impulses, we can do good. Note that RMS and the GNU foundation has focused on the same. When people assume that we are command structured (authoritarian), but also working for the good of our fellows (socialist), they assume that we are Communist (state socialism). Rather, we are socialist libertarians. Or at least, speaking for what I see of the OS/FS movement, it is based and functions within socialist libertarian parameters. (Much has been written about the anarcho-capitalist ideas that many geeks like.)
This is not the first time that Anarchists have been confused with Communists. If you read the history of the Spanish Civil War, it's usually described as "The Facists vs. The Communists". But there was a third side, and a very powerful side at that. Several towns belonged to the Anarchists, and the Anarchists helped fight (but ultimately, defeated by the German & I believe Italy as well Fascists, commanded by Franco). The Anarchist revolution was very real, and quite extraordinary. But because the Anarchists were socialists, the war is usually just "simplified" into "The Facists vs. The Communists".
Uh, no. He's whining about having his house and street covered by hoards of armed agents.
Just send the police after the teenager, no need to make it a national ordeal.
Hephaestus or Belldandy?
on
A Beautiful Mind
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The question is -HOW?
How do you get work done without being eccentric?
Feynmann rightly noted that thinking about things requires long uninterruptable periods of time. He compared thinking to building a house of cards.
Other "geniuses" have agreed. (They are also almost universal in saying that there is nothing particularly special about their brains or way of thinking. Einstein was quite adament about this.)
The question in my mind is: How do you do it?
I'm addicted to thinking, but I also value the happiness of the people around me. Feynmann was okay with declaring himself irresponsible in order to make time for his intellectual persuits, but what is the father of a needy daughter to do?
Torvalds has two kids, but I get the impression that he neglects them, given the way that he holds his behavior in contempt ("I'm not a nice person; I'm a hard-boiled bastard who doesn't give a damn about anything but the technology", or something like that). If I recall right, Feynmann had his kids after he did his major works.
Einstein is famous for rocking a cradle while working on a paper. That's relatively easy; I've written architecture on paper while rocking Sakura's when she was just 1 month old. I'm sure anyone could; 1 mth olds don't really DO much. Einstein has attributed much of his ability to work on problems to time available at the patent office.
So, can you think a lot and Love your Neighbors at the same time? I'm not really all that sure. I think you just have to wait for steady blocks of time to show up, or start fucking people over with an angry temper.
Read it critically. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it does seem to me to be saying: "What we've got is incredibly unfair. You, a rich Economist reader, are (rightly, even though wrongly) advantaged. If you want to keep that advantage, you've got to give to charities, because if you don't- well, it sounds like we've got a class war coming soon. We're talking widespread socialist ideas, the return of the Anarchists, and class war. So either the rich wealth keep the people happy, or they're going to try and take it for themselves."
You've got to love these patronizing arguments, adorning the pages: "Hey! Nobody is poor, because even the poor have toilets- something the kings of ages past never had! So, the poor don't really have it bad; They're just complainers." Or another one: "Don't feel so guilty about your riches; None are rich, because no one is content. That means you aren't rich! It's been stressful lately, those poor don't know anything about riches. If only they knew the pain of managing the people."
Slashdot Mirror
That's not true. Read Mark Twain's perspective on the issue.
Here's a snip:
And continuing later on...
I recommend reading the whole essay, "What is Man".
If more people were cynics, the world would not only remove charlatans (though incidentally, I'm quite happy with charlatans who rob robbers; It's much better than people who aid and assist robbers for a days wages), but the world would be full of wonderful friendly people.
What is a cynic? As far as I can tell, a cynic is a person who is a realist and an idealist.
To be a cynic, you have to be a realist. You've already helped demonstrate that, when you wote "even if it is true in an ultimate sense". A realist looking at human behavior will give that serious attention, and meditate deeply on its consequences, as has Mark Twain.
But to be a cynic, you also have to be an idealist. That seems contradictory; How's that? Because in order to complain about the way things are, you have to have some idea of how things should be. You have to be an idealist.
If you are a realist but not an idealist, you become someone who is content ripping people off, or just doing whatever you need to survive, the effects of whatever it is be damned. This describes 90% of people, I believe. Perhaps 10-20% of people are content ripping others off, the other 70-80% are quite happy just doing whatever they need to do in order to survive comfortably, effects on others be damned. Being a Realist while discarding ideals is what gives the Right a bad name.
If you are an idealist but not a realist, you run the danger of trying to do good things, but failing miserably, because you are out of touch with reality. At worst, such failure can be dangerous. Being an Idealist while discarding reality is what gives the Left a bad name.
When you have both Idealism and Realism, you are a Cynic.
Incidentally, there is a name for what effective Cynics are called- that name is "SAINT".
Did Mark Twain reach Sainthood? In my eyes, Yes, because he has had a very powerful positive influence on my life, and the lives of many others, even beyond death.
I'm crying, I'm really crying.
"There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen."
Okay; How about instead of having the computer do the book keeping for the player, the player still does the book keeping, but the player uses a calculator to do the addition and subtraction?
Now lets say that the calculator has a memory key...
That's odd; I lived in California for 21 years, and food prices were never difficult. I live in Washington now; When I was in California, I thought that I noticed that food cost less.
I'm rather happy that the people behind the checkout stand make $20/hr, rather than the $10 or $11/hr that I imagine that they would make otherwise. I haven't noticed the price difference.
I have heard that the US phone companies store the telephone switching computers in carefully unmarked basements of various public buildings in the areas where they are performing switching.
I have also heard that these are typically UNIX systems, and- get this- your phone number represents a series of cd ("cd", as in "change directory") operations into a file tree.
So for example, if your phone number is 547-9510, then information about connecting to you is stored in directory ..../5/4/7/9/5/1/0/
I don't know if any of this is true, but I have heard it from a person who has business knowing such things, and it sounds plausible to me. =^_^=
Reply if you know better. Just a tangential tidbit.
Just for fun, I'd like to show something.
Here's a quote from the story:
Now here's a quote from my Chemistry book:
Unlike today's pure science?
Which has researched aging in order to slow it down, and turned iron into the "stronger" steel?
It always ticks me off how modern Chemistry people are so eager to diss their intellectual ancestry. Yeah, like the Alchemists of yore were supposed to know that there weren't spirits living in trees, or that metals didn't embody healing properties. How were they supposed to know? As far as people knew, the Gods where in the heavens, the Demons were in the ground, and the Monsters were in the seas. How can we be on such a high horse, when we ourselves have benefitted from thousands of years of research? How can we stomp on the Alchemists, when they themselves contributed so much to early Chemical research? They did intensive cataloging and discovery of substances, they collected work into papers, they invinted chemical methods. But, Silberberg is quick to tell us, "Alchemy's legacy to chemistry is mixed at best."
Start with a book. Turn it into a choose your own adventure. Protected?
Now make it a little more sophisticated; Something like "Grail Quest". It has the player keep track of things like inventory and health and armor, but is still a choose-your-own adventure. Protected?
Okay, now lets take the SAME exact thing, but have a computer do the book keeping for the player. Protected?
Now lets make it a little more sophisticated, but still wordy, like Zork. Protected?
Replace wordy imagery with the occasional ASCII graphic. Protected?
Give the user a map, like in Zork Zero (if I recall correctly). Protected?
Use the map primarily, and the text secondarily, like in NetHack. Protected?
Apply better graphics, like the graphic ports of NetHack. Protected?
Give the user a first person perspective in the maze, Ultima Underworld or something like that. Protected?
It is a SMOOTH continuum from books to games. I can take any game, and gradually transform it into a book, and any book and gradually transform it into a game.
Give me any two expressions, one slightly more interactive than the other, and I can construct an expression in between.
(no big secret, right C4L?)
I'm afraid this goes a little deeper than just that..!
{;D}=
What an idiot. We have just largely stopped using magazines in light of the Internet.
I've learned almost everything I know about electronics from the Internet.
Look at these books! Look at them! All Free, as in Liberty AND No-Cost. These are some of the very best books I have found on electronics, on-line or off. Forest Mims the Third, eat your heart out.
Do we want to talk about mentoring and serendipity?
There you go.
If anything, I'd say that amateur science and learning and construction is more popular now, because it is more accessible.
It just doesn't take the form of magazine articles.
MICROSOFT is AGRESSIVELY trying to get people to not like the GPL. It is a propaganda campaign, and a strategic campaign. What do you think about that?
On one side, there is a miniature dictatorship, a company, that regularly uses anti-competitive measures while hiding behind capitalist rhetoric (which itself RELIES ON competition).
On the other, a huge federation of Free developers giving away their code for free, acceoted on the condition that modifications to that code are also made free (& Free).
It seems pretty clear to me which side are the "good guys" and which side are the "bad guys", especially when Microsoft has a proven history of unethical actions (such as in court and in marketting propaganda) and anti-competitive practices.
I don't understand why you are taking the wrong side here.
Do you support power to the elite (aristocracy), or power to the people (democracy)?
Judging by your rhetoric ("Welcome to the Real World", which I am interpreting here as "Welcome to dog-eat-dog unjust cruelty, which I am about to defend"), it seems pretty clear to me that you hold aristocratic notions of how people are to be manipulated and governed, rather than democratic notions of equity and Freedom.
And as for your talk about the dangers of 0-cost software, I repeat the sentiment of another [scornful!] slashdot poster: "Yer honer, they can't sell it *that* low! I'll go out of business!"
Over at Kuro5hin, the site is pretty much paid for by user placed ads.
The difference between user text ads and corporate ads is amazing. There is a lot of fun in the top-left corner of the screen, where the ads sit. You can also comment on most ads (there is an option to prohibit commenting, but it is rarely used), as if they were stories.
We Kuro5hin-ers are quite happy with our ad system.
I have a nice seat here at the corporate office for you and your ethical conscience. Can I interest you hiring you to find out how to manipulate people's consumer behavior into letting us exploit them?
Which seems more likely:
Situation A: It is largely the fault of everyone you know- your mother, your father, your brothers and sisters, your daughters and sons. Most everyone is to blame. When your mom got her Yahoo account, she should have fully research the implications of her online contracts. She should not only check "Don't send me unsolicited email", but she should also call up Yahoo to make sure that Yahoo won't try to advertise to her by phone, either.
Or situation B. Admit that we have better things to do, and that we expect- no, rely on, moral behavior from the people we do business with. That there are unspoken agreements to be followed. That even though your mom gave some information to get $5.00 off from a book sale, that she doesn't really expect, nor want, to have that information sold and resold.
Perhaps if the tradeoffs were more clearly written, your mom wouldn't have made the trade, but years of market research have shown that subtly describing is better than overtly saying, and your mom got conned. You have been conned, unless you defend such conning, and as such, carefully read every contract with a fine comb. Remember- Marketing: It's not persuasion, It's product awareness. (gleam!)
"It's right for others to be scammed, because they don't do the work to make sure that they themselves aren't scammed. They've got what's coming to them." Empowering. Indeed. That's right- everyone YOU know is a slacker. Your friend the pot head. Your friend the sports fan. Your friend the raver. Your friend the dad. Your friend the child. Slackers- all of them. If they give out their information, they've got what's comming to them.
Ahhh.. Someone who believes in the dollar vote. Yes, we like your belief in the dollar vote, and will elevate your papers with prestige and glory. You may even wine and dine with us, we like your ideology so much.
A handful of discriminating geeks may end their Yahoo accounds, but are people going to leave en masse?
MuaHaHaHaHa!
All your privacy are belong to us. =^_^=
The TrustE program is rooted in the ideology of anarcho-Capitalism, the idea that a free society can come about through the abolition of all government, and the aggressive privatization of everything, including courts and militaries. (Less aggressive Libertarians are generally minarchist, and believe that it's probably best to let government have the courts and the military, in order to best protect property.)
The anarcho-capitalist argument usually goes something like that: Government intervention is not only bad for business (and thus, you and me), but it's also immoral. But people do not need government to be safe; They can rely on the market for protection. It is beneficial to the market to protect you, since there is obviously a demand for protection.
There are many problems with these notions, but anarcho-Capitalists, generally intelligent people have an affinity for axiomatic theories (in this cased, based in the notion of contracts).
How does the theory fail? It's not too difficult to find out, if you aren't an anarcho-capitalist yourself. All you need to do is look at a failing of the market to protect people, and trace it to its source.
For example, Yahoo just recently changed their privacy policy, for the worst. Let's accept as fact that the majority of people don't like this, since its hit Slashdot and most people are bitter about it. How did Yahoo do that? According to the New York Times article, they have played on the exact lettering of their contract. Yahoo pledged that it would not email its users, but did they say they would not telephone? No, they never said they would not do that.
How has anarcho-capitalism failed here? Anarcho-capitalists would have said that we are kept safe by the competition of privacy policies. There would have been, say, 5 yahoo's, all slightly different, and one would have had a better privacy policy. I don't know how the anarcho-capitalist would respond to the complaint that we want to use services, not read contracts and theorize about them all day (for example, "They say they won't contact me by email, but they might call me by telephone! I better inform Yahoo that their contract needs work before I'm willing to sign it..!").
Note Esther Dyson's complaint, supporting this notion:
In other words, it's our fault, because we don't think about contracts in full. The problem is that contracts do not accurately reflect what we want. We are irrational beings, which chops at the root of anarcho-capitalist thinking. But rather than ammend their philosophy to take into account consumer behavior (which companies are eager to take advantage of; Look at any college textbook on the subject), they insist that consumer behavior is wrong, and that absolute contract-based theory is right.
Going back to Anarcho-capitalists believing in a competition of privacy policies: Unfortunately, there are not 5 yahoo's. (If there are, we don't know about it.) Why is that? That's probably very complicated to answer, but my guess is that it has to do with branding. And when you have advertising/branding strategies in place to get people to use your business, there is almost always room for only 1, 2, maybe 3 companies in people's heads. But very rarely do I ever see the role of advertising and people's ability to recall brands appearing in anarcho-capitalist literature. In anarcho-capitalist literature, we are all perfectly rational beings who have all the time in the world to investigate every contract and extrapolate it's meaning in purely legalistic terms.
--Wired (Notice the implicit necessity for competition, and the assumed assumption of TrustE actually working.)
But we're not even at the main story here, which is about TrustE. TrustE is born almost completely out of anarcho-capitalist theory. Indeed, when I worked at a dot-com (now failed), the owner of the company (and big-time Madrona investor) told us how excited he was to participate in TrustE, which was going to show to the world how anarcho-capitalist protections work for everybody. What is the program?
TrustE fills the role in the anarcho-capitalist dream of a market response to the demand for safety. It works like this: Companies pay TrustE in order to have a seal that proves that they are going to play nice. TrustE in turn watches over the company, and makes sure that they are doing right by what they said they would do. The moment the company tries to do anything wrong, TrustE slaps them by removing their brand from the Company.
Systems like these are proposed by anarcho-capitalists in order to remove the entire government. For example: The justice system. There would be a number of competing courts, and the ones with a good reputation and contract would be utilized by people to try their cases. The military and police forces- if one wasn't nice to people, we'll all just hire another to protect us. To be fair, Libertarians don't go quite as far as the anarcho-Capitalists in this respect, the Libertarians just want to have no government/military regulation except of military force. (I find it likely though, that the government would act in the interest of the corporate interests, and not in the public interests; It is said that "Property is 9/10's of the Law". Undoubtably, people crushed by non-violent anarcho-capitalist market rule would want to / need to violate some property laws, and thus have the weight of the establishment upon them, in full military force.)
How do these systems fail? In precisely the ways that critics say that they will fail. Obviously TrustE wants people's money, so it is already biased to certify companies. I suspect that more importantly, it wants to be seen as actually meaning something (lest everyone stop using them), and thus it doesn't want to de-list its most famous clients. Should Yahoo be delisted, Amazon might feel like delisting. Should the big names fall, everyone would fall.
Anarcho-Capitalists need to learn this method. It's not based in axiomatic derivation, which is clean, but rather, in analysis of real world situations. Anarcho-capitalists extrapolate all kinds of things from their initial set of perfectly rational contract-analyzing citizens. Unfortunately, when we look at real world systems, we find that anarcho-capitalist theory has no value.
Anarcho-Capitalists need to think about this very carefully, and act accordingly. Again, in brief, the method is this: Take a limited set of clear ideas. Extrapolate from them. Then check those ideas against reality around you. How do the ideas fail? Is it reasonable to expect that the failing will reoccur, or is this just a fluke? If they will reoccur, revise the ideas to match reality.
In closing, some choice quotes:
--MetroActive on Esther Dyson
(Esther Dyson, we can at least vote against the government. How will we protect ourselves from companies..? Dollar votes have proven not to work, the companies research our behaviors too well. You have seen yourself that it does not work. Shall we just be screwed; Are we getting our just deserts for being human?)
Another interesting quote is on the TrustE web page:
It's interesting to study where the words come from. Unfortunately, I won't take the time to back up this claim, but "...independent, third-party would hear and respond to their complaints and resolve their disputes." comes straight out of the anarcho-capitalist literature on how to run a justice system by third-party companies, without a government..!
Well, young John Gaults of the world, TrustE has failed. This is a great opportunity for you to come forward with your own competing TrustE systems that will have better morals, and certify to the world the successes of your anarcho-capitalist philosophy.
Hm, I was pretty sure it was Flash Gordon (ooold sci-fi show) that the first Star Wars came from. You have Ming (Darth Vader), you have OB1-kenobi, you have Luke skywalker, you have OB1 going into the evil fortress and shutting down the defence shield from within... I forget if the Force was there or not.
Someone who has Flash Gordon memorized in their head, please post a better reply.
BTW, it is still appropriate to say that the work is related to Jospeph Campbell's, just as it would be appropriate to say that it was related to, say, Jung. That's because Joseph Campbell and Jung lay claim to wiiide territory and deep waters- pretty much anything in the realm of Myth, which includes Star Wars.
A bunch of U.S. games? The Japanese aren't into that. They like cute games and manga comic styles. I remember reading the creator of OddWorld saying something like, "We can't sell this game in Japan; No matter how you market it, you can't get around the fact that he's a green slime lizard with his mouth sewn shut! We put billboards everywhere- not a sale."
As far as I can tell, the Japanese don't really like our style of games (big big big monster trucks and skateboarders). And they've already infiltrated our culture with their games and style, which is, basically, Anime. Final Fantasy & Mario.
Who wants an X-Box, an oversized machine with gigantic controllers that basically runs trash US games? Maybe some 133t sk4ter d00dz or quake fanatics, but not the Japanese.
(This post generalizes. There are of course exceptions. But for the most part, I believe that this explanations holds true. =^_^=)
And kind slave owners that treated their slaves nicely were used as illustrations that the slavery situation was good for everybody, slaves included. We're all just one, big, happy family.
Of all of the Score 3+ articles I have seen here, this is the only one that accurately reflects what the so-called "anti-globalization" movement is all about. The remaining articles have no clue what it is about. This article should receive more attention.
Use OpenNIC, a truly democratic system for domain names.
It only takes about 2-5 minutes to set up on your computer.
Learn more by reading the OpenNIC FAQ.
I've heard of a band called 'stratosphere' or something in SF, CA, that does video game covers. Can anyone tell me about them? I don't think I have the name quite right.
No, I haven't read Marx. Actually, I haven't read Marx for a very explicit reason: I'd like to be able to say to people, "I haven't read Marx." This is primarily a political maneuver. There is a fear of anyone who has read Marx in certain circles, and I'd like to be able to talk with those people.
Given that, I have a friend who's a died in the wool Russian communist, and we argue very frequently, and with much shouting and rivalry. I have asked him to explain Marx's ideas to me, at least as best he understands it, and I have asked others the same.
Here is basically what I have learned (that is relevant to this conversation): There are three stages. The first is capitalism, and people eventually feel oppressed. Then there is a revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat rises to power. This middle stage is called "Socialism". Then finally the dictatorship dissolves itself, and you end up in a Communism.
I asked my friend what the Communism stage is like, and after he described it to me, I said, "Well, that's an Anarchy!" Regional democratic control of things, stuff like that. So, I understand that, and I agree with that point.
The trick is that middle stage, and that's where Anarchists and Communists disagree. The Communists insist on a dictatorship in the middle. I've read some pretty scarry Maoist stuff in that respect. In fact, after the revelution in Russia, there were several communities that just skipped the middle stage. They went straight into Anarchism. But I have read that the "All power to the Soviets (Communities)" was betrayed, and they were taken, by force, into the State Communism. Because apparently the theory demanded it. They couldn't just go right into an Anarchy, they had to belong to the State first.
Anyways: This is how Marx has been described to me, and this is what I read, and how I interpret it.
As far as I can tell, power is never given up readily. It doesn't matter who's taking it, or receiving it, or whatever; It's just like the One Ring from Mordor. It's addictive, and terribly dangerous.
No "Revolution of the Proletariat" for me.
I don't know; Maybe I'm wrong about Marx. Maybe he didn't actually say that there should be those three stages. I haven't read him; This is just hearsay. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I should note- My Communist friend, who I spoke about earlier- he believes that the third stage, the Anarchy, what he called "Communism"- he thinks it's a mistake. He thinks that a government of the proletariat should rule. He thinks that it should never disband it's power. He is, basically, a Facist. He believes that a strong and powerful government should rule everything, and just "be nice".
Well, I don't know; There are a handful of Fascist systems that have worked. For example, Thailand is a Monarchy (not exactly facist, but it's close), and they have a great thing going- for the time being, with the current Emporer. No sarcasm- the people there really Love him, and with good cause; He's been, from what I understand, a fair and good guy. Everyone hates the congress, but they take their Emperor very seriously.
So I suppose if you get the good king out of a million, you're all right. But the vast majority are bad, and state communism, state capitalism, state whatever- I don't trust.
I've rambled too much.
Anarchists and Communists, confused again. It has played over and over again.
Whenever there is a revolution, there are usually two principle revolutionary sides, Anarchists and Communists.
Both have similarities, and both have sharp differences. Generally, they both have socialist ends. But they differ on the nature of government: The Communists want strong central control. The Anarchists want deeply diffused democratic control.
The Free Software / Open Source movement is a case example of working Anarchy. Free Software developers are generally anti-authoritarian, and believe that the people doing the work call the shots. It's generally socialist, in the sense of sharing (but not in the Marx dictatorship sense). Work is done by a series of agreements and shared interest. Many are motivated to get particular things done, or out of a sense of solidarity. There is no ruler that can tell you what to do. Decisions are generally based on a consensus, but there are a few Linus Torvalds, and consessions made for expediency. The work has no chain of command, rather, it works by confederation. For example, there is the overall Open Source/Free Software movement. (We can draw humerous/interesting comparisons with the CNT/FAIR, respectively; One is more practically based, the other more ideologically based.) Above the OS/FS organization (in a certain sense), there is the KDE project. Above that platform lives the KOffice project. Above that lives the KWord, KSpread, and Kivio projects. I imagine that within those projects, there are other projects. And there are documentation projects, and usability projects, and they interact between projects, and they all work together. This is an Anarchist society, with minimal rulers and ruled. It is almost unthinkable that a member of the KDE organizing team would command a member of the KSpread team to do some particular thing, and that thing be done because of "orders from above". This is not to say that people don't argue and strategise and haggle; They do. But overall, the whole thing works. The operating system is a little "poor", and has a sort of "poor man's operating system" feel to it, but this is more than made up in the fun of it.
A communist vision of OS/FS would be state control. Flip the pyramid. OpenSource/FreeSoftware as command structure.
When you hear people saying, "I don't understand, why doesn't the OpenSource community devote most of it's effort to XYZ", where XYZ is something like better graphics, or device support, or something that they see as critical (and could quite likely use a lot more work), they are assuming that the OpenSource/FreeSoftware world works according to a command structure, and that we are working on it because we feel like suplicating ourselves to some "great cause." The reality is that we are not supplicating ourselves to some "great cause". Rather, we are doing it because we want to. This is Libertarian (the 1890's version of the word, which was anarcho-socialist, rather than the modern, anarco-capitalist meaning of the word) beliefs incarnate and applied: By acting on our natural impulses, we can do good. Note that RMS and the GNU foundation has focused on the same. When people assume that we are command structured (authoritarian), but also working for the good of our fellows (socialist), they assume that we are Communist (state socialism). Rather, we are socialist libertarians. Or at least, speaking for what I see of the OS/FS movement, it is based and functions within socialist libertarian parameters. (Much has been written about the anarcho-capitalist ideas that many geeks like.)
This is not the first time that Anarchists have been confused with Communists. If you read the history of the Spanish Civil War, it's usually described as "The Facists vs. The Communists". But there was a third side, and a very powerful side at that. Several towns belonged to the Anarchists, and the Anarchists helped fight (but ultimately, defeated by the German & I believe Italy as well Fascists, commanded by Franco). The Anarchist revolution was very real, and quite extraordinary. But because the Anarchists were socialists, the war is usually just "simplified" into "The Facists vs. The Communists".
Now you know, and... {:)}=
Uh, no. He's whining about having his house and street covered by hoards of armed agents.
Just send the police after the teenager, no need to make it a national ordeal.
The question is -HOW?
How do you get work done without being eccentric?
Feynmann rightly noted that thinking about things requires long uninterruptable periods of time. He compared thinking to building a house of cards.
Other "geniuses" have agreed. (They are also almost universal in saying that there is nothing particularly special about their brains or way of thinking. Einstein was quite adament about this.)
The question in my mind is: How do you do it?
I'm addicted to thinking, but I also value the happiness of the people around me. Feynmann was okay with declaring himself irresponsible in order to make time for his intellectual persuits, but what is the father of a needy daughter to do?
Torvalds has two kids, but I get the impression that he neglects them, given the way that he holds his behavior in contempt ("I'm not a nice person; I'm a hard-boiled bastard who doesn't give a damn about anything but the technology", or something like that). If I recall right, Feynmann had his kids after he did his major works.
Einstein is famous for rocking a cradle while working on a paper. That's relatively easy; I've written architecture on paper while rocking Sakura's when she was just 1 month old. I'm sure anyone could; 1 mth olds don't really DO much. Einstein has attributed much of his ability to work on problems to time available at the patent office.
So, can you think a lot and Love your Neighbors at the same time? I'm not really all that sure. I think you just have to wait for steady blocks of time to show up, or start fucking people over with an angry temper.
Everyone here should read the collection of Economist articles, collectively named "Does Inequality Matter"?
Read it critically. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it does seem to me to be saying: "What we've got is incredibly unfair. You, a rich Economist reader, are (rightly, even though wrongly) advantaged. If you want to keep that advantage, you've got to give to charities, because if you don't- well, it sounds like we've got a class war coming soon. We're talking widespread socialist ideas, the return of the Anarchists, and class war. So either the rich wealth keep the people happy, or they're going to try and take it for themselves."
You've got to love these patronizing arguments, adorning the pages: "Hey! Nobody is poor, because even the poor have toilets- something the kings of ages past never had! So, the poor don't really have it bad; They're just complainers." Or another one: "Don't feel so guilty about your riches; None are rich, because no one is content. That means you aren't rich! It's been stressful lately, those poor don't know anything about riches. If only they knew the pain of managing the people."