It's only that if there are no constitutional constraints on what can be decided. Even in today's citizen initiatives, they must pass constitutional muster before even getting on the ballot.
Also, there is no such thing as a standing majority on all issues. Combine that with many persons in the majority who stand in league with minorities, and you don't necessarily have a system that is as dire you as you suggest.
This is actually something I've contemplated for a long time, and I could nearly write a book.
But I'll just say that even if a working system for direct democracy was devised, at least working in the beginning, there would be two major ongoing forces that would have too easy a time corrupting it: 1) Corporate mass media, with its built-in PR/propaganda machine, having the capability of "informing" the masses to consistently move toward their goals. 2) Natural enemies of democracy (usually the far right), even within democratic countries, who would ceaselessly try to infiltrate and cause problems in the system, no matter what security or other measures are devised.
It's funny, but the more I have contemplated the power and possibilities of a DD system, the more I have appreciated representative democracy that adheres (or at least is supposed to adhere) to constitutional protections.
After over a decade of consideration, I've come to the conclusion that the overall best approaches for dealing with all these unresolved political problems is two things, basically: 1) Find ways to encourage a lot more "dialogue across differences" -- transform away from ideological/partisan camps at war to constructive discourse aimed at resolving issues by their own merits; 2) Improve education, not only for children and young adults, but for everyone -- Make knowledge about complex subjects easier to obtain and understand (Wikipedia is only a start).
Perceived technical superiority is not the only reason to use a particular technology. Whether something is a true and wide standard is important. Whether a developer is locked into a vendor's clutches is important. Whether the open technology is "good enough" is important.
True enough. But this notion can be applied to just about any programming platform. When a programmer tries to put all their expectational needs into one technology basket, bad designs can happen.
I think both should be kept around. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. As a programmer, I like picking the best tool for the implementation.
Exactly. JavaScript performs well now (generally) and it gives us programming goodies like Ajax, transitions, flat dialogs, etc. I'm actually in like (not love yet) with the language.
If someone wants to add to its mission, or write a client-side language with a different mission, go for it.
But a lot of the web is running nicely with JavaScript, and pulling out the JavaScript rug from web developers and website owners is really not an option.
"And no, I don't fix them. I simply do not have the time nor the inclination to play editing wars with some wikifascist."
In place of preconceived notions and defeatism, perhaps you could give it a try. Even if you meet some resistance, it likely won't be on the majority of articles you attempt to improve.
On the most popular website I run, 90.5% of the organic hits continue to come from Google, with only 4.0% coming from Bing. Until I see _these_ numbers change significantly, I don't care what the overall market shares of these search engines are. In short, I only care about the data that relates to my own sites, and it should behoove everyone to do the same.
I know this is off-topic, but this page on Slashdot is loading very slowly using either Firefox 3.5 or IE8. It appears to have something to do with JavaScript. Firefox indicated this as it kept asking me to continue loading scripts. And IE8 switched me into compatibility mode -- something I've never seen occur on any other site I visit (and I visit many, many sites).
Slashdot Mirror
It's only that if there are no constitutional constraints on what can be decided. Even in today's citizen initiatives, they must pass constitutional muster before even getting on the ballot.
Also, there is no such thing as a standing majority on all issues. Combine that with many persons in the majority who stand in league with minorities, and you don't necessarily have a system that is as dire you as you suggest.
This is actually something I've contemplated for a long time, and I could nearly write a book.
But I'll just say that even if a working system for direct democracy was devised, at least working in the beginning, there would be two major ongoing forces that would have too easy a time corrupting it: 1) Corporate mass media, with its built-in PR/propaganda machine, having the capability of "informing" the masses to consistently move toward their goals. 2) Natural enemies of democracy (usually the far right), even within democratic countries, who would ceaselessly try to infiltrate and cause problems in the system, no matter what security or other measures are devised.
It's funny, but the more I have contemplated the power and possibilities of a DD system, the more I have appreciated representative democracy that adheres (or at least is supposed to adhere) to constitutional protections.
After over a decade of consideration, I've come to the conclusion that the overall best approaches for dealing with all these unresolved political problems is two things, basically: 1) Find ways to encourage a lot more "dialogue across differences" -- transform away from ideological/partisan camps at war to constructive discourse aimed at resolving issues by their own merits; 2) Improve education, not only for children and young adults, but for everyone -- Make knowledge about complex subjects easier to obtain and understand (Wikipedia is only a start).
2011: Microsoft discovers lazy loading.
Oracle in control of Java might put a multi-level stopper to this approach. Hatred of Oracle in some quarters is even greater than that of Microsoft.
Yeah, it's so "terminal" my web applications are running beautifully with it.
JavaScript won't die because of the opinion of a few. Eliminationism tends to create more problems than it solves. By a wide margin.
Perceived technical superiority is not the only reason to use a particular technology. Whether something is a true and wide standard is important. Whether a developer is locked into a vendor's clutches is important. Whether the open technology is "good enough" is important.
Talk about splitting hairs. Jeez.
Please keep the politics out. Can't we have a haven for tech-only discussion please?
Your nightmare is my beautiful dream, insofar as I use JavaScript for the needs it best fits.
True enough. But this notion can be applied to just about any programming platform. When a programmer tries to put all their expectational needs into one technology basket, bad designs can happen.
I think both should be kept around. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. As a programmer, I like picking the best tool for the implementation.
I would add to this...
The web as document-only is a ship that has sailed, and that trip was in the last century.
Is Gopher still around? :)
Exactly. JavaScript performs well now (generally) and it gives us programming goodies like Ajax, transitions, flat dialogs, etc. I'm actually in like (not love yet) with the language.
If someone wants to add to its mission, or write a client-side language with a different mission, go for it.
But a lot of the web is running nicely with JavaScript, and pulling out the JavaScript rug from web developers and website owners is really not an option.
Let's call for some pragmatism here, shall we?
"And no, I don't fix them. I simply do not have the time nor the inclination to play editing wars with some wikifascist."
In place of preconceived notions and defeatism, perhaps you could give it a try. Even if you meet some resistance, it likely won't be on the majority of articles you attempt to improve.
The question is pertinent. Why parse me?
Are there really many human beings defending small 'd' democratic values, period?
Wait, I thought these downloaders paid for those electrons! :)
On the most popular website I run, 90.5% of the organic hits continue to come from Google, with only 4.0% coming from Bing. Until I see _these_ numbers change significantly, I don't care what the overall market shares of these search engines are. In short, I only care about the data that relates to my own sites, and it should behoove everyone to do the same.
Explain this to Facebook. Nice fairy tale.
That's my guess of a stat. I'll keep with PHP, thanks.
I know this is off-topic, but this page on Slashdot is loading very slowly using either Firefox 3.5 or IE8. It appears to have something to do with JavaScript. Firefox indicated this as it kept asking me to continue loading scripts. And IE8 switched me into compatibility mode -- something I've never seen occur on any other site I visit (and I visit many, many sites).
What's going on?
So Bing is now The Decider? :)
Thank you for saying what a lot of us think on a regular basis.