Nothing there that's really that interesting anymore... it all seems like it happened long ago. I like the bits about people fleeing the now hated ".com" tag. Serves them right, the sheepheaded train jumpers.
Napster, blah blah, Microsoft, blah blah, Britney, blah blah, dumb thieves/blackmailers. Is there nothing more to talk about?
This is why teachers should respect their students more. If I were in that position, I'd be talking with the kid about computers, getting their point of view, trying to get them interested in helping other students. Maybe even getting them to be a White Hat and help secure the system.
I mean, are all computer science teachers in High School complete users, or what? Don't they have any projects going on the side that they could Shanghai a talented young coder into helping them out with? Wouldn't that be a good way to give the kid an opportunity to earn extra credit?
Maybe there should be an effort on behalf of grown-up geeks to start an international program that encouraged young'uns (both male AND female) to learn computers in a more collaborative way. Kind of "Open Source Learning for Young Geeks". I'm sure the educators would hate that idea though... it would take the control out of their hands, which is what this all about.
Anyhow, you got fsked. One month suspension of computer priveleges on the fear that you MIGHT do something? Very enlightened.
I seem to remember a joke way back on SNL, where they had metric days in the future that were 100 hours long, 10 day weeks, etc.
I also remember doing almost the exact thing this guy is doing when I was creating a world for AD&D (again, way back), only I didn't count from zero. I like the monthless day 00. This guy makes a lot of sense, but standing against convention takes more than a good idea, it takes a paradigm shift.
So what if we all followed this 13 month system and used "internet time" of 000-999? Would people in the future look back and think "they finally got their act together and rationalized the measurment of time"? Or will they be using the Mayan calendar?
I've heard that multiplexing is an important strategy to deliver more data via fiber. I know that the mirror approach would, but I kind of doubt that using diffraction to aim photons would work if there was more than one bandwidth in the pipe. Could a GLV somehow be engineered to work with more than one frequency of light?
And are there other ways (in theory) to deflect the beam. I realise that using a EM field probably wouldn't work, but is there some sort of field (gravity?...) that could be use to control the switch? Something that took out the "mechanical" out of the equation?
Unfortunately, the older electric buses are being (slowly) replaced with conventional buses. As someone who lives on Main St. and rides the infamous No.3 daily, I hate to see the decline of this system.
It irritates me for at least two reasons: first, the old system works fine, even counting the number of times the driver has to hop out and reconnect his bus to the overhead lines.
The second is that we are developing fuel cell technology (Ballard Power) for mass transit, but the fskers in Translink would rather waste money on the damn SkyTrain monorail. Why not place orders for a bunch of fuel cell buses, and hence stimulate both the fuel cell and fuel cell FUEL industries locally?
The electric trams were the FIRST form of mass transit in Vancouver, and still provide clean public transportation a hundred years later.
No lasting offense intended, which is why I've ignored the obvious potential joke about inbreeding.
That's funny, cos I like to do incest fantasy role-playing with my g/f, so that might have stung me a bit more than I'd like to admit. Still, no harm, no foul.
We may both retire with our honour intact, to quasi-flame another day...
Ah, I detect the scent of a sense of humour. All the references to sex, with children, vinyl objects (three, no less), and transvestism, PLUS the zinger at the end about "right-thinking God-fearing Christians".
You either have a sense of humour and are really bored, or you don't and you are easily enraged through text. Either way, you should get out more.
And my girl is 24. And I'm her boy. She blew me this morning before I went to work, where I'm getting paid to write this. Life is good.
So *you* go to Hell. I hope it warms your Christian heart a few degrees Kelvin...
(At least you took the time to read my posts. I was getting worried nobody appreciated my writing. Thank you for your continued interest and support!)
Tell me, please, how temp workers--who you have already described as having "commodified" skills--have much of an option as a group? (And why would you imply that commodification is a positive thing? Do you feel better as a human to know that you are a uniformly-swappable cog in the machine of enterprise? I prefer to focus on the things that make me special, personally.)
Individuals may or may not have the ability to leave their uncushy temp jobs and find something comparable with a riskier company. But as a group, you can hardly expect them to walk out and find work. So, because Microsoft has the "weight" to throw around, and the ability to easily slot in a new temp, they aren't going to suffer, but temps in general must face pissing off their contracting company, and making a name for themselves as "difficult" and possibly losing their income.
Perhaps for the high-priced contractors of the world this is "just the way things are", but some people just want to survive. Not all companies are as mercenary as Microsoft, but size breeds arrogance, and they are one of the worst offenders. I find that most companies treat their customers like they treat their employees. The reverse is also true.
Face it: Microsoft's general attitude for over a decade to both customers and its temps has been "take or leave it". Only, you HAVE to take it, because the only option is being shut out. So quit implying that temp workers have a rosy career path just waiting for them to "choose" not to work for companies that take advantage of their replacability.
Freedom to starve isn't any kind of freedom at all.
Not that I always agree with your Marxist analysis of everything, but I do value your voice here. I'd just like you to know that somebody here doesn't think you should suffer the indignities suggested by my brothers, merely for stating your opinion. Feel free to spout Leftist rhetoric... at least it will help balance out the monotonous chant of "leave us with our profits... we owe the world nothing" from the Libertarians.
Yeah. Such a psuedo-Wildesque SIG implies someone who thinks they are both maligned/misunderstood and better than the people around them. SOUNDS LIKE PRETTY GENERIC GEEK TO ME.
Being a geek poser myself, I find that drawing attention to myself by claiming that "nobody understands my genius" is always a great way to impress people who otherwise would look at me and think "what a fsckin' loser..."
Not to mention the fact that he thinks employers have the right to shaft employees through legalistic trickery and corporate intimidation. SURE THEY CAN JUST LEAVE... and be forever known as an "unreliable quitter". I'm sure that would look great on their temp resume. Face it: if they wanted a geek-like career, they would NOT be temps.
They occupy positions of minor responsibility that people can easily be shuffled into and out of. But you don't have to be a rocket scientist and ubergeek to deserve respect from your employer, and even secretaries (ESPECIALLY SECRETARIES) provide value to employers. So why should they be screwed over when it comes to benefits just because the execs prefer to keep their workforce disposable and in fear?
Because Microsoft prefers to make profits, not friends, and employees come first only when they are valued for their creative powers, if at all. I think that under a lot of the pro-business rhetoric on Slashdot is something really ugly: a contempt for people who aren't as technically skilled, intelligent, and affluent. As if being human required certification.
I for one don't think I'm better than anyone. I got over that shit a long time ago.
"Aesthete". Gawd. I think Oscar Wilde would tell him to go fsck himself (only with a more witty and incisive choice of words).
So who's gonna build a car to go with the wine glass, so we can have mini cops with mini roadblocks and mini breathalyzers ready to bust your ass for being over the limit?
What could you actually build that would be useful with this technology as it stands now? I mean, given its limitations, if you fired up CAD and had carte blanche, what would be your ultimate 3D rendering? A microscopic Tux? A Porche 911? The smallest Vaio in existance?
All I can say is that SOMEBODY got a nice, fat contract to build a shitty little tug with 20 PC's on it. I know that a quarter-mil doesn't sound like a lot to us in the First World, but you could do a hell of a lot with that kind of cash in Malaysia. This project is tokenism, and won't benefit *anybody* on the client side.
If they are so concerned with providing basic internet education and getting people "on board" (sorry for the pun), then they will are much more likely to succeed by focusing on leveraging the infrastructure they DO have (schools, libraries, other public buildings) in the semi-rural areas, and working outward.
This boat idea is just for show ("showboat"?). How many country hicks do you think will "get it" in a couple of hours? You might as well be showing them movies or letting them play video games for all the education they'll be getting.
(Then again, touring around the backcountry, teasing the natives with technology they won't be able to afford for a generation, and raking in the loot sounds like a pretty good gig to me...)
Before I begin, I appreciate the tone of your response. I admit that the conservative/conformist elements of any society play an important role. The problem as I see it is that conformity is being IMPOSED by a culture that values conformity above all else. There may be lip-service paid to the value of revolutionary ideas, innovative approaches, and transforming paradigms, but these can only find acceptance if they eventually "fit in" to the prevailing norms (ie: new "revolutionary" products should benefit existing industries, as opposed to making them obsolete).
When the inevitable paradigm shift comes, the conformists will make sure that there is hell to pay, will target the non-conformists and persecute them, and then, a few decades later, will settle into the new world view with as much complacency as before. Conformity is not about providing "balance", it's all about "drag".
And it surely is not a "gift" to be unconscious and uncritical.
What I am saying is that while jumping from one world view to another--without any "drag" to hold back change--would indeed be a bad thing, but we don't have to PROMOTE conformity by punishing those who don't fit in. Conformity will ALWAYS be with us, we just have to make sure that those who have a different vision of themselves, their relation to the group, and the world around them should be given the opportunity to develop without the misery that marginalization brings.
Free thought, free speech, and free spirits are a good thing. Being locked into a box and a role by your peers is definitely not.
I consider any "group" with a well-defined identity and sense of its own self-interest to be a corporate entity. This includes political parties, companies, industry groups, and any other special interest group... even the ones I may agree with. The problem is that they deal with issues in an "us vs. them" manner, using sterile rhetoric instead of actually communicating. Nobody speaks as an individual, only as their corporate role (ie: "spokesman", "lawyer") dictates.
People that speak for a group are, in fact, acting in an anti-democratic fashion, since they are further reinforcing the corrupt philosophy that the voice of the citizen is inadequate to address the needs of the common good. In effect, they reduce the dialogue to a defence of their positions and policies and attack on any competing ideas, without ever considering the merits of anyone else's point of view. This is not democracy. This is corporatism.
Democracy is listening and thinking. Democracy is saying what you mean. Democracy is negotiating in good faith to find consensus.
All of this has to do with one issue: conformity. Some cultures are less tolerant of non-conformity than others, but even many Geeks want you to conform in order to be accepted. (I don't think I need to mention operating system preferences for you to get the picture).
The fact is that we all want to belong. It is a built in drive. Belonging = comfort and esteem. What's not to like? The problem is that how do you define the criteria for who belongs and who doesn't? Race? Religion? Fashion-sense?
I find most single-issue groups dull. Stoners, Jocks, GearHeads, English majors... they all require you to "earn" your way into their specialized dialects and customs. Geeks are no different. "Conform or be cast out" to quote Geddy Lee.
Conformity is a sin against your human spirit. It may be more convenient in the short term, but it will lead you to a life of regret and self-doubt. I think the nastiest people are the ones who are the least secure in their place.
One example is the girl who executed (the only word that applies) Rena Virk in Victoria, British Columbia. She had to make a reputation for herself as a bad-assed bitch, so she ended up holding a "loser" under water with her foot while she smoked a cigarette. This is merely a logical extension of the trend: make your rep on the backs of the outcasts, so make sure there are plenty of outcasts to choose from.
What we have to do is teach non-conformity to our children. Unfortunately, in America, as elsewhere, this is not going to happen, because nobody wants a generation of kids that think for themselves.
Mike the Geek, I like the way you speak. My RHETORIC-METER(tm) has barely given off a tick on either of your posts. Kudos!
I agree that the real threat of the Internet is to upset the balance of power (that is, melt down the Pyramid, which is built on specialized knowledge and secrets). It is a revolutionary tool in the truest sense, if only it can survive long enough.
I am personally FOR capitalism AND communism, as long as they are properly mixed in the public mind, and not the dominant truths of competing societies. What a waste! All we need is MORE free speech. MORE MORE MORE. There is no 'problem' with free speech (pr0n, terrorism, bad journalism) that can't be rectified by increased freedom of speech for all humans on this planet.
The fact of the matter is that both Capitalists and Communists fear unrestrained democracy and free speech, because neither can stand long against criticism. Kind of like Open Source: enough eyeballs will find all existing bugs.
The problem being, of course, is that the government of the US (and most everywhere else, too) is largely controlled by Corporate interests. I don't see how this does anything but arrive at the same conclusion (ie: pro-corporate), only more slowly.
And before you tell me that all we have to do is change the government through the available democratic mechanisms, I think you better give your head a shake. There is not two systems (public and private), there is one society dominated by the self-appointed elite. The battle for hearts and minds has been going on for a long time, and the web of Corporate interests permeates all through international society. There is little hope of making any changes while humans continue to live unconscious lives focused on economic purely goals.
The problem I have with Communists is their insistence that once they hold power, they will manage the rest of us in our own best interests... because of course THEY know the TRUTH, which the proletariat is too dumb to ever understand. How convenient for them. I'm sure that self-interested Communist management of the economy would be much more effective than self-interested Capitalist management.
Either way, the little guy has to bend over and take it... or does he?
You don't seem to understand the real issue here is that corporate entities are controlled by managers, and managers are pretty much the same (ie: lazy, greedy, dim) in both the public and private sectors. Handing the power to set standards from one bureaucracy to the other is hardly a solution, unless you consider shuffling the deck and picking a new card at random an optimal strategy.
For there to be a rational and disinterested outcome, for there to be an international set of standards that apply universally across the Web, it will take the combined effort and wisdom of EVERYONE who has a stake in this... which includes the people who DON'T have access to the Internet.
While I agree that there is a role for governments to play (hopefully in investing in infrastructure that benefits the common good), you can hardly leave industry out of the picture. But the key to defining and achieving worthwhile goals is to raise the profile of the average net citizen, and to find ways to increase participation and transparency in the process.
I seriously doubt that Leftist rhetoric has any role to play, any more than does the ceaseless chanting of "In the name of The Shareholders, of Globalization, and of The Invisible Hand."
I just wish people would be a little more practical and a little less idealistic.
I have limited experience in both technical writing and software design, but I am presently neck deep in both. I would love to see an Open Source FM clone, every other kid on the block uses it.
Since I haven't used FM, I wouldn't be much help in spec'ing the interface, but I'd love to be part of the usability/testing group.
I gotta ask two questions: how does someone keep all that stuff "mint" condition? Imagine the shelves stacked with all those games. Goofy!
The other: did this guy just get married, or what? What makes a game fanatic suddenly say "hey! all those games I've been obsessively collecting for the last 15 years could bring me a lot of cash". I've known DJ's to sell off half of their 1000 LP collections, and its an emotional thing, and I figure this must be the same.
Anyone know what the original cost would have been for all this? I think a museum should pick this stuff up, and add a wack of Atari 2600 and Intellivision stuff too.;)
As far as I'm concerned, the only similarity between Anarchists and Libertarians is that they both talk about the rights of the individual. The only difference being, of course, that they are looking at it from opposite sides.
The concept of a political party is alien to the Anarchist movement. The Libertarians tell you that only corporate (ie: party) dialogue counts, supporting the legitimacy of the group over the individual because "we all know" people speaking for themselves don't really count: you have to represent the interests of many people before you will be heard.
To an Anarchist, this sounds pretty wierd. Anarchists talk to human beings, not spokesmen, not corporations, not governments. How can you speak to an abstract entity? (reference: Clue Train Manifesto) An anarchist does not--ever--become the "role" of a corporate representative, and isn't there to empower special interests whether they are related to groups, or kings, or gods. An anarchist stands for himself, and sacrifices as necessary for the common good. To support one part of the population against another is to divide the common good... to play the game of the indivisible middle.
The only way to move towards a consious government is to stop fooling ourselves that any group--no matter what their political philosophy--have a disinterested view of creating an outcome that benefits everyone. Groups act in their own interest, so politics is the process of winning power.
It's the prisoner's dilemma, and you aren't allowed to care about anyone but yourself. Who sells out first gets the most, and everyone else can go screw themselves, because the individual (in the Libertarian conception) has no role in creating the common good. That's fine if you are a member of the management and professional elite, but it means that everyone else loses.
I think Anarchy is about supporting the legitimacy of the individual's right to question, doubt, and be critical. It's about challening the voice of authority and forever questioning what is "right".
It isn't about "manufacturing consent" or dealing away personal power in order to win something in the short term. It's about waking up and involving people in their own government. It's about being human.
I think that if you have a mind of your own, and don't blindly buy into the porno & guns aspect of Heinlein's stories (and even as a teen, I felt the drag of 'wading through' some of his preachy Libertarianism), then you don't need to avoid reading them.
Besides, he is a perfect example of how the role of the individual is seen by Libertarians, and how the role of the citizen is defined in his utopian ideology. What I'm saying is: even if you are an Anarchist, he still provides a good story and a foil on which to test your beliefs. If you only read books that agree with your POV, you're pretty timid.
I read Stranger (and almost all of the rest of Heinlein's work) back in the 80's and was a big fan of science fiction in general. I was a typical nerd: SF, RPGs, and junk food were my drugs of choice.
One summer, while staying in Campbell River, British Columbia, I ended up playing Dungeons and Dragons [hope the movie doesn't suck] with Jane Fonda's son. I ended up going grocery shopping with Jane and my mom, and had a conversation about Heinlein with her at a BBQ dinner. She ended up signing my Dungeon Master's Guide on the flyleaf, with an almost illegible paragraph imploring me to "grok" the magic of life.
This, coming from Barbarella: it was a really cool experience. I still have that DMG, too.
---
The only thing I have to say about Stranger is this: it made a big impression on me, with its indictment of materialism and its innovative twist on "Men from Mars".
No! We must pit the power of decaying technology against the skills and power of the Iron Chef! We will equip Iron Chef with a Black and Decker electric carving knife and a REALLY BIG TURKEY BASTER and unleash him on the innocents of Junkyard Wars.
Surely, two things will be accomplished: great TV moments will be created, along with a delicious entree of roast muffler with a garnish of minced gasket in a light Skydrol dressing.
The Iron Chef sez: "I AM THE IRON CHEF! BRING IT ON, JIVE TURKEYS!"
It seems to me that "splitting the difference" between the desktop and server is going to be a problem for Darwin. I'm not a Level 9 SysAdmin or anything, but everyone seems to be saying the same thing: Darwin needs to deliver innovative features on multiple platforms before the command-line set will get interested in using it and supporting it. There needs to be an advantage to using Darwin over other *NIXes, and software development for OSX just isn't it.
I have to say from the user end, the whole Aqua re-design really turns me off. They seem to have forgotten every UI lesson they've ever learned. I mean, sure, it LOOKS nice, but the goofy bells and whistles that are going to make it LESS efficient just make me want to see another "skin" available for OSX... preferably OS9 (and yes, I know you can run apps in OS9 "in" OSX, but it that's not what I'm talking about). So I doubt geeks will be drawn to Darwin for the chance to use Aqua.
The addition of Java 2, Display PDF, etc. is good though. And having a full-screen terminal is fine by me. There is promise, and I like Apple (since before '84), but they have to raise the bar further on this OS if they want to make a splash.
Slashdot Mirror
Napster, blah blah, Microsoft, blah blah, Britney, blah blah, dumb thieves/blackmailers. Is there nothing more to talk about?
I mean, are all computer science teachers in High School complete users, or what? Don't they have any projects going on the side that they could Shanghai a talented young coder into helping them out with? Wouldn't that be a good way to give the kid an opportunity to earn extra credit?
Maybe there should be an effort on behalf of grown-up geeks to start an international program that encouraged young'uns (both male AND female) to learn computers in a more collaborative way. Kind of "Open Source Learning for Young Geeks". I'm sure the educators would hate that idea though... it would take the control out of their hands, which is what this all about.
Anyhow, you got fsked. One month suspension of computer priveleges on the fear that you MIGHT do something? Very enlightened.
I also remember doing almost the exact thing this guy is doing when I was creating a world for AD&D (again, way back), only I didn't count from zero. I like the monthless day 00. This guy makes a lot of sense, but standing against convention takes more than a good idea, it takes a paradigm shift.
So what if we all followed this 13 month system and used "internet time" of 000-999? Would people in the future look back and think "they finally got their act together and rationalized the measurment of time"? Or will they be using the Mayan calendar?
I've heard that multiplexing is an important strategy to deliver more data via fiber. I know that the mirror approach would, but I kind of doubt that using diffraction to aim photons would work if there was more than one bandwidth in the pipe. Could a GLV somehow be engineered to work with more than one frequency of light?
And are there other ways (in theory) to deflect the beam. I realise that using a EM field probably wouldn't work, but is there some sort of field (gravity?...) that could be use to control the switch? Something that took out the "mechanical" out of the equation?
Unfortunately, the older electric buses are being (slowly) replaced with conventional buses. As someone who lives on Main St. and rides the infamous No.3 daily, I hate to see the decline of this system.
It irritates me for at least two reasons: first, the old system works fine, even counting the number of times the driver has to hop out and reconnect his bus to the overhead lines.
The second is that we are developing fuel cell technology (Ballard Power) for mass transit, but the fskers in Translink would rather waste money on the damn SkyTrain monorail. Why not place orders for a bunch of fuel cell buses, and hence stimulate both the fuel cell and fuel cell FUEL industries locally?
The electric trams were the FIRST form of mass transit in Vancouver, and still provide clean public transportation a hundred years later.
That's funny, cos I like to do incest fantasy role-playing with my g/f, so that might have stung me a bit more than I'd like to admit.
Still, no harm, no foul.
We may both retire with our honour intact, to quasi-flame another day...
Ah, I detect the scent of a sense of humour. All the references to sex, with children, vinyl objects (three, no less), and transvestism, PLUS the zinger at the end about "right-thinking God-fearing Christians".
You either have a sense of humour and are really bored, or you don't and you are easily enraged through text. Either way, you should get out more.
And my girl is 24. And I'm her boy. She blew me this morning before I went to work, where I'm getting paid to write this. Life is good.
So *you* go to Hell. I hope it warms your Christian heart a few degrees Kelvin...
(At least you took the time to read my posts. I was getting worried nobody appreciated my writing. Thank you for your continued interest and support!)
Tell me, please, how temp workers--who you have already described as having "commodified" skills--have much of an option as a group? (And why would you imply that commodification is a positive thing? Do you feel better as a human to know that you are a uniformly-swappable cog in the machine of enterprise? I prefer to focus on the things that make me special, personally.)
Individuals may or may not have the ability to leave their uncushy temp jobs and find something comparable with a riskier company. But as a group, you can hardly expect them to walk out and find work. So, because Microsoft has the "weight" to throw around, and the ability to easily slot in a new temp, they aren't going to suffer, but temps in general must face pissing off their contracting company, and making a name for themselves as "difficult" and possibly losing their income.
Perhaps for the high-priced contractors of the world this is "just the way things are", but some people just want to survive. Not all companies are as mercenary as Microsoft, but size breeds arrogance, and they are one of the worst offenders. I find that most companies treat their customers like they treat their employees. The reverse is also true.
Face it: Microsoft's general attitude for over a decade to both customers and its temps has been "take or leave it". Only, you HAVE to take it, because the only option is being shut out. So quit implying that temp workers have a rosy career path just waiting for them to "choose" not to work for companies that take advantage of their replacability.
Freedom to starve isn't any kind of freedom at all.
Dear Anne Marie,
Not that I always agree with your Marxist analysis of everything, but I do value your voice here. I'd just like you to know that somebody here doesn't think you should suffer the indignities suggested by my brothers, merely for stating your opinion. Feel free to spout Leftist rhetoric... at least it will help balance out the monotonous chant of "leave us with our profits... we owe the world nothing" from the Libertarians.
I swear, they're as bad as jocks sometimes!
</troll>
Yeah. Such a psuedo-Wildesque SIG implies someone who thinks they are both maligned/misunderstood and better than the people around them. SOUNDS LIKE PRETTY GENERIC GEEK TO ME.
Being a geek poser myself, I find that drawing attention to myself by claiming that "nobody understands my genius" is always a great way to impress people who otherwise would look at me and think "what a fsckin' loser..."
Not to mention the fact that he thinks employers have the right to shaft employees through legalistic trickery and corporate intimidation. SURE THEY CAN JUST LEAVE... and be forever known as an "unreliable quitter". I'm sure that would look great on their temp resume. Face it: if they wanted a geek-like career, they would NOT be temps.
They occupy positions of minor responsibility that people can easily be shuffled into and out of. But you don't have to be a rocket scientist and ubergeek to deserve respect from your employer, and even secretaries (ESPECIALLY SECRETARIES) provide value to employers. So why should they be screwed over when it comes to benefits just because the execs prefer to keep their workforce disposable and in fear?
Because Microsoft prefers to make profits, not friends, and employees come first only when they are valued for their creative powers, if at all. I think that under a lot of the pro-business rhetoric on Slashdot is something really ugly: a contempt for people who aren't as technically skilled, intelligent, and affluent. As if being human required certification.
I for one don't think I'm better than anyone. I got over that shit a long time ago.
"Aesthete". Gawd. I think Oscar Wilde would tell him to go fsck himself (only with a more witty and incisive choice of words).
So who's gonna build a car to go with the wine glass, so we can have mini cops with mini roadblocks and mini breathalyzers ready to bust your ass for being over the limit?
What could you actually build that would be useful with this technology as it stands now? I mean, given its limitations, if you fired up CAD and had carte blanche, what would be your ultimate 3D rendering? A microscopic Tux? A Porche 911? The smallest Vaio in existance?
All I can say is that SOMEBODY got a nice, fat contract to build a shitty little tug with 20 PC's on it. I know that a quarter-mil doesn't sound like a lot to us in the First World, but you could do a hell of a lot with that kind of cash in Malaysia. This project is tokenism, and won't benefit *anybody* on the client side.
If they are so concerned with providing basic internet education and getting people "on board" (sorry for the pun), then they will are much more likely to succeed by focusing on leveraging the infrastructure they DO have (schools, libraries, other public buildings) in the semi-rural areas, and working outward.
This boat idea is just for show ("showboat"?). How many country hicks do you think will "get it" in a couple of hours? You might as well be showing them movies or letting them play video games for all the education they'll be getting.
(Then again, touring around the backcountry, teasing the natives with technology they won't be able to afford for a generation, and raking in the loot sounds like a pretty good gig to me...)
Before I begin, I appreciate the tone of your response. I admit that the conservative/conformist elements of any society play an important role. The problem as I see it is that conformity is being IMPOSED by a culture that values conformity above all else. There may be lip-service paid to the value of revolutionary ideas, innovative approaches, and transforming paradigms, but these can only find acceptance if they eventually "fit in" to the prevailing norms (ie: new "revolutionary" products should benefit existing industries, as opposed to making them obsolete).
When the inevitable paradigm shift comes, the conformists will make sure that there is hell to pay, will target the non-conformists and persecute them, and then, a few decades later, will settle into the new world view with as much complacency as before. Conformity is not about providing "balance", it's all about "drag".
And it surely is not a "gift" to be unconscious and uncritical.
What I am saying is that while jumping from one world view to another--without any "drag" to hold back change--would indeed be a bad thing, but we don't have to PROMOTE conformity by punishing those who don't fit in. Conformity will ALWAYS be with us, we just have to make sure that those who have a different vision of themselves, their relation to the group, and the world around them should be given the opportunity to develop without the misery that marginalization brings.
Free thought, free speech, and free spirits are a good thing. Being locked into a box and a role by your peers is definitely not.
I consider any "group" with a well-defined identity and sense of its own self-interest to be a corporate entity. This includes political parties, companies, industry groups, and any other special interest group... even the ones I may agree with. The problem is that they deal with issues in an "us vs. them" manner, using sterile rhetoric instead of actually communicating. Nobody speaks as an individual, only as their corporate role (ie: "spokesman", "lawyer") dictates.
People that speak for a group are, in fact, acting in an anti-democratic fashion, since they are further reinforcing the corrupt philosophy that the voice of the citizen is inadequate to address the needs of the common good. In effect, they reduce the dialogue to a defence of their positions and policies and attack on any competing ideas, without ever considering the merits of anyone else's point of view. This is not democracy. This is corporatism.
Democracy is listening and thinking. Democracy is saying what you mean. Democracy is negotiating in good faith to find consensus.
All of this has to do with one issue: conformity. Some cultures are less tolerant of non-conformity than others, but even many Geeks want you to conform in order to be accepted. (I don't think I need to mention operating system preferences for you to get the picture).
The fact is that we all want to belong. It is a built in drive. Belonging = comfort and esteem. What's not to like? The problem is that how do you define the criteria for who belongs and who doesn't? Race? Religion? Fashion-sense?
I find most single-issue groups dull. Stoners, Jocks, GearHeads, English majors... they all require you to "earn" your way into their specialized dialects and customs. Geeks are no different. "Conform or be cast out" to quote Geddy Lee.
Conformity is a sin against your human spirit. It may be more convenient in the short term, but it will lead you to a life of regret and self-doubt. I think the nastiest people are the ones who are the least secure in their place.
One example is the girl who executed (the only word that applies) Rena Virk in Victoria, British Columbia. She had to make a reputation for herself as a bad-assed bitch, so she ended up holding a "loser" under water with her foot while she smoked a cigarette. This is merely a logical extension of the trend: make your rep on the backs of the outcasts, so make sure there are plenty of outcasts to choose from.
What we have to do is teach non-conformity to our children. Unfortunately, in America, as elsewhere, this is not going to happen, because nobody wants a generation of kids that think for themselves.
Nuff said.
Mike the Geek, I like the way you speak. My RHETORIC-METER(tm) has barely given off a tick on either of your posts. Kudos!
I agree that the real threat of the Internet is to upset the balance of power (that is, melt down the Pyramid, which is built on specialized knowledge and secrets). It is a revolutionary tool in the truest sense, if only it can survive long enough.
I am personally FOR capitalism AND communism, as long as they are properly mixed in the public mind, and not the dominant truths of competing societies. What a waste! All we need is MORE free speech. MORE MORE MORE. There is no 'problem' with free speech (pr0n, terrorism, bad journalism) that can't be rectified by increased freedom of speech for all humans on this planet.
The fact of the matter is that both Capitalists and Communists fear unrestrained democracy and free speech, because neither can stand long against criticism. Kind of like Open Source: enough eyeballs will find all existing bugs.
The problem being, of course, is that the government of the US (and most everywhere else, too) is largely controlled by Corporate interests. I don't see how this does anything but arrive at the same conclusion (ie: pro-corporate), only more slowly.
And before you tell me that all we have to do is change the government through the available democratic mechanisms, I think you better give your head a shake. There is not two systems (public and private), there is one society dominated by the self-appointed elite. The battle for hearts and minds has been going on for a long time, and the web of Corporate interests permeates all through international society. There is little hope of making any changes while humans continue to live unconscious lives focused on economic purely goals.
The problem I have with Communists is their insistence that once they hold power, they will manage the rest of us in our own best interests... because of course THEY know the TRUTH, which the proletariat is too dumb to ever understand. How convenient for them. I'm sure that self-interested Communist management of the economy would be much more effective than self-interested Capitalist management.
Either way, the little guy has to bend over and take it... or does he?
You don't seem to understand the real issue here is that corporate entities are controlled by managers, and managers are pretty much the same (ie: lazy, greedy, dim) in both the public and private sectors. Handing the power to set standards from one bureaucracy to the other is hardly a solution, unless you consider shuffling the deck and picking a new card at random an optimal strategy.
For there to be a rational and disinterested outcome, for there to be an international set of standards that apply universally across the Web, it will take the combined effort and wisdom of EVERYONE who has a stake in this... which includes the people who DON'T have access to the Internet.
While I agree that there is a role for governments to play (hopefully in investing in infrastructure that benefits the common good), you can hardly leave industry out of the picture. But the key to defining and achieving worthwhile goals is to raise the profile of the average net citizen, and to find ways to increase participation and transparency in the process.
I seriously doubt that Leftist rhetoric has any role to play, any more than does the ceaseless chanting of "In the name of The Shareholders, of Globalization, and of The Invisible Hand."
I just wish people would be a little more practical and a little less idealistic.
I have limited experience in both technical writing and software design, but I am presently neck deep in both. I would love to see an Open Source FM clone, every other kid on the block uses it.
Since I haven't used FM, I wouldn't be much help in spec'ing the interface, but I'd love to be part of the usability/testing group.
I gotta ask two questions: how does someone keep all that stuff "mint" condition? Imagine the shelves stacked with all those games. Goofy!
;)
The other: did this guy just get married, or what? What makes a game fanatic suddenly say "hey! all those games I've been obsessively collecting for the last 15 years could bring me a lot of cash". I've known DJ's to sell off half of their 1000 LP collections, and its an emotional thing, and I figure this must be the same.
Anyone know what the original cost would have been for all this? I think a museum should pick this stuff up, and add a wack of Atari 2600 and Intellivision stuff too.
As far as I'm concerned, the only similarity between Anarchists and Libertarians is that they both talk about the rights of the individual. The only difference being, of course, that they are looking at it from opposite sides.
The concept of a political party is alien to the Anarchist movement. The Libertarians tell you that only corporate (ie: party) dialogue counts, supporting the legitimacy of the group over the individual because "we all know" people speaking for themselves don't really count: you have to represent the interests of many people before you will be heard.
To an Anarchist, this sounds pretty wierd. Anarchists talk to human beings, not spokesmen, not corporations, not governments. How can you speak to an abstract entity? (reference: Clue Train Manifesto) An anarchist does not--ever--become the "role" of a corporate representative, and isn't there to empower special interests whether they are related to groups, or kings, or gods. An anarchist stands for himself, and sacrifices as necessary for the common good. To support one part of the population against another is to divide the common good... to play the game of the indivisible middle.
The only way to move towards a consious government is to stop fooling ourselves that any group--no matter what their political philosophy--have a disinterested view of creating an outcome that benefits everyone. Groups act in their own interest, so politics is the process of winning power.
It's the prisoner's dilemma, and you aren't allowed to care about anyone but yourself. Who sells out first gets the most, and everyone else can go screw themselves, because the individual (in the Libertarian conception) has no role in creating the common good. That's fine if you are a member of the management and professional elite, but it means that everyone else loses.
I think Anarchy is about supporting the legitimacy of the individual's right to question, doubt, and be critical. It's about challening the voice of authority and forever questioning what is "right".
It isn't about "manufacturing consent" or dealing away personal power in order to win something in the short term. It's about waking up and involving people in their own government. It's about being human.
I think that if you have a mind of your own, and don't blindly buy into the porno & guns aspect of Heinlein's stories (and even as a teen, I felt the drag of 'wading through' some of his preachy Libertarianism), then you don't need to avoid reading them.
Besides, he is a perfect example of how the role of the individual is seen by Libertarians, and how the role of the citizen is defined in his utopian ideology. What I'm saying is: even if you are an Anarchist, he still provides a good story and a foil on which to test your beliefs. If you only read books that agree with your POV, you're pretty timid.
I read Stranger (and almost all of the rest of Heinlein's work) back in the 80's and was a big fan of science fiction in general. I was a typical nerd: SF, RPGs, and junk food were my drugs of choice.
One summer, while staying in Campbell River, British Columbia, I ended up playing Dungeons and Dragons [hope the movie doesn't suck] with Jane Fonda's son. I ended up going grocery shopping with Jane and my mom, and had a conversation about Heinlein with her at a BBQ dinner. She ended up signing my Dungeon Master's Guide on the flyleaf, with an almost illegible paragraph imploring me to "grok" the magic of life.
This, coming from Barbarella: it was a really cool experience. I still have that DMG, too.
---
The only thing I have to say about Stranger is this: it made a big impression on me, with its indictment of materialism and its innovative twist on "Men from Mars".
No! We must pit the power of decaying technology against the skills and power of the Iron Chef! We will equip Iron Chef with a Black and Decker electric carving knife and a REALLY BIG TURKEY BASTER and unleash him on the innocents of Junkyard Wars.
Surely, two things will be accomplished: great TV moments will be created, along with a delicious entree of roast muffler with a garnish of minced gasket in a light Skydrol dressing.
The Iron Chef sez: "I AM THE IRON CHEF! BRING IT ON, JIVE TURKEYS!"
It seems to me that "splitting the difference" between the desktop and server is going to be a problem for Darwin. I'm not a Level 9 SysAdmin or anything, but everyone seems to be saying the same thing: Darwin needs to deliver innovative features on multiple platforms before the command-line set will get interested in using it and supporting it. There needs to be an advantage to using Darwin over other *NIXes, and software development for OSX just isn't it.
I have to say from the user end, the whole Aqua re-design really turns me off. They seem to have forgotten every UI lesson they've ever learned. I mean, sure, it LOOKS nice, but the goofy bells and whistles that are going to make it LESS efficient just make me want to see another "skin" available for OSX... preferably OS9 (and yes, I know you can run apps in OS9 "in" OSX, but it that's not what I'm talking about). So I doubt geeks will be drawn to Darwin for the chance to use Aqua.
The addition of Java 2, Display PDF, etc. is good though. And having a full-screen terminal is fine by me. There is promise, and I like Apple (since before '84), but they have to raise the bar further on this OS if they want to make a splash.