From the summary: Two much comfort, and the car rolls and pitches a lot
I don't know what's more disturbing: The obvious spelling error in the article summary or that fact that, six hours later, not a single nerd has thought it important enough to mention...
Is it possible that I am the only one who cringed when reading "two much"????
Well, in Penteli mountain, there are verified gravitational anomalies (there are also a hell lot more noted in the Hellenic space by physicists).
Who mods this crap up? "NATO was interested" and "gravitational anomalies"?!? WTF!? I thought we were nerds here...
"Gravity hills" are nothing more than optical illusions, Penteli mountain included. Check out this link for more information. (shakes head at the state of "science" here on Slashdot... double shakes at the tin foil hat wearing mods...)
Your words are very kind but remember that this all took place nearly thirty years ago. While I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for my mother to lose a baby, it never struck me as abnormal or harsh or whatever. I was young enough that everything that happened merely happened... normal was defined as whatever happened to me and my family. I suspect that's the way it is with everyone.
The point you bring up about the very young and the very old taking a beating from everyday diseases is a rather insightful one. Whether it is food borne illness or West Nile, attacks that otherwise healthy people can fend off are often fatal for those with compromised immune systems...
Not to be too fatalistic about this whole thread but please remember that no one lives forever. The means by which a person dies may seem cruel or sudden but the fact of the matter is that none of us have a snowball's chance in hell in making it through life alive. Death is quite natural.
What the hell is wrong with people?! Is chicken pox -- as a child -- really so bad?
For what it's worth, it can be. My brother and sisters and I all caught chicken pox in the winter of 1977. I had a pretty mild case as did my brother older sister. My little sister, though -- she was 10 months old at the time -- ended up getting meningitis (inflammation of the brain) and died from it. Having complications that severe might be uncommon but it still happens. I still get a knot in my stomach when I hear that a friend's child has chicken pox. I understand (intellectually) they'll probably be fine... but it doesn't stop me from getting a little freaked.
540 in the house, 52 in the senate. If you have problems with the number in the house, I suggest that you try google.
No offense but are you smoking crack?
There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. There are 100 Senators.
This is a total of 535 members. Not sure where you got your crazy numbers from but maybe, again, "googling" for a quick answer is no substitue for actually KNOWING these things...? I don't know. Some people would say knowing about how your government works is sort of important. Knowing basic stuff like "Each state has 2 senators (for a total of 100) and their number of representatives proportionally alloted based on the population of the state from the last census... that, in fact, is why we HAVE a census every ten years...)"
To answer your comment: I wouldn't say I have a problem with the number in the house... I just have a problem with your faulty reporting of that number.
It's more like the opinions of the 592 individual Americans in congress, the 1 person that matters in the White House, and 7 in the supreme court (although they don't have as immediate impact as the other 593 peopls.)
Uh... everyone seems to be pointing out that there are 9 members of the Supreme Court -- but why has it been over five hours and not a single person comments that there are 535 members of Congress, not "592"?
Geeks get pissed when "regular lusers" can't be bothered to learn the fundamentals about the computers that they use each and every day... they can spend hours getting into the nitty-gritty details of whether the 11th movie in a series will accurately reflect a throw-away comment from a low-budget TV series that was yanked 35 years ago... but they can't be bothered to know how many people are in Congress? Why do you think we have these lemmings, anyway? Would you like to borrow a mirror for a moment?
1984 would require surveilance in the privacy of your own home, tracking your sexual habits, hobbies, et cetera. Keeping track of everywhere you go, your political opinions, and taking action against you for them. It will be 1984 when your television records YOU.
OK, what if it's not my television, though? What if it's my computer? What if my web browser, my cookies, my SPYWARE starts tracking and compiling all of the above? What then? Does it have to be the government doing the tracking? What if the government can just buy the commercially available database that is being sold based on the above information which is being tracked?
Honestly curious what Slashdotters have to say about this one...
My philosophy on self awareness is that an being is self aware when it has the capacity to perceive how other beings perceive it, or the world. I.E. being able to look through someone else's eyes.
Hmmm... but then by that test, most household pets are obviously self aware, as anyone who has ever been upset with a cat or a dog will attest to. Animals are enormously empathic and quite capable of perceiving whether we are happy or upset with them. I had a cat, Tabby, who would always leave the room when I was upset with something she had done.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your measurement. It just strikes me at first glance as being overly simplistic. It is possible that many reptiles/birds/fish/mammals may be self-aware... but I'd say you might want to refine your definition at least a little. How would a computer programmed to recognize a furrowing brow, the narrowing of the eyes or a quickening pulse and responding by increasing processor speed or some other way not fall under this definition, too? Would you argue that this computer is suddenly self aware because it is programmed to observe (and respond) to our reactions to it?
Stopping the progress of science and civilization for an extended navel-gazing session doesn't sound very interesting, though. It would shift the custodianship of scientific power away from the scientists and towards the politicians, the philosophers, or, heaven forbid, the priests. Bad move for civilization, IMHO
Why is this YHO (your humble opinion), anyway? Sure, the priests, when they have power, tend to see things in very black and white terms and use their power to perpetuate that power. Just like the kings and the nobility did. Just like the political parties do today. That's just a function of power...
...but I posit -- and am fully prepared to get flamed like there is no tomorrow as a result -- that at least the priests and the philosophers think about the problems of the day and aren't addicted to this real-time realpolitik which plagues us. I think you made a lot of really great points in your post but this is one popular position with which I take issue. Other than the nature of power to consolidate itself...which is a function of being human...which means it may never go away... what is your issue with the priests and the philosophers taking on the custodianship of things for a while? Seriously...?
You might not know what you are talking about here. I personally own the NZ-90 -- I picked it up on a super sale, open box discount, rebate, etc. etc. I was going to buy a digital camera that day -- I was prepared to spend over $200 for just a camera but I picked up an NZ-90 for $199. GREAT 2 megapixel camera that takes some amazing pictures. Audio recorder. MP3 player. Brilliant 320x480 screen. The pivoting thing actually makes a lot of sense depending on if you are viewing data or using the PDA to take pictures and the mechanism is amazingly sturdy.
If I have a complaint about my NZ-90, it is how sturdy the thing is. It is a BRICK, weighing in at just over 10 oz. Sony managed to pack a TON of features into a very small space. But I love it. And FLIMSY it is not... I use it to read books, take pictures, play MP3s, record video journals, capture audio in meetings... Pocket Quicken and Datebk5 make me look like I am actually organized. Mapopolis is incredible for getting around Minneapolis (and the 320x480 resolution is VERY welcome with maps!). I can review any document file in its native (PDF, DOC, XLS) format. And, of course, the games....
Sorry but not everyone on Slashdot is too cool to let "Sony = bad" groupthink get in the way of appreciating a really great piece of hardware...
Has anybody stopped to consider the opposite? I mean, on an NPR report earlier this week some of the numbers I heard tossed around were that this IPO could net Google upwards of $20 billion. But this is google we are talking about. Everybody and their grandmother uses google. Everybody. Google gets so much of what they do right. Let's just play make believe, just for a moment, and imagine what would happen if the bidding gets fast and furious. What would happen if, instead of $20 billion, somehow the IPO gets out of control and raises $200 billion? (We are playing make believe, remember.) Microsoft currently has a market capitalization of around $300 billion... In this imaginary world, wouldn't it be possible for this new, cash-bloated-Google-with-teeth to make a bid for Microsoft...?
Humans have always felt a close relationship with the tools they use to get their work done. We have unearthed hunters from many thousands of years ago who were buried with their tools. You see people feel a kinship with their (book collection/music collection/car/favorite pair of jeans/lucky lighter/favorite pen) -- It appears to be in our nature to anthropomorphize things that we frequently interact with or associate with ourselves. We become accustomed to the particular quirks of these objects. The noises they make. The little things that need to be done to allow them to operate optimally. Why would computers be any different? I don't have a bow and arrow but I use my Sony Vaio every day to do my work. Human nature doesn't change just because the tools have...
you write a few sentences apart that Common Good results from capitalism, and that an economic system can't be concerned with morals and ethics
Hmmm... I honestly don't see the contradiction. What I was trying to get at -- and maybe didn't state it as clearly as I meant -- was that the Common Good results from capitalism... in spite of the fact that people are all independent agents and in spite of the fact that perhaps none of them are considering that their actions will bring about that good. It is that very selfish activity of the independent agents that brings about the increase in capital. It provides the incentive to work harder. It encourages others who spot inefficiency to "build a better mousetrap".
I think new ideas, new way of thinking about the world is how change eventually takes place. But I'll admit to a healthy dose of skepticism when I read the term anarcho-syndicalism. I agree with what you had to say about how a mass-mindset won't happen tomorrow... and would repeat my earlier question of what is to be done before this utopian change of heart comes about.
I'd also be curious to know how problems like the free-rider, the fact that people slack when the boss is gone, speed when the police aren't looking and advocate stealing from the rich (see the great-grandparent post) could be addressed without changing our very genetic makeup. Selfishness has some powerfully strong survival advantage which means it is pretty hard-coded into our DNA. Just something to consider...
I, too, find this debate productive but it appears that you and I have a lot to debate...
Many who pirate software, say from M$, may feel that they are doing the world good by depriving M$ of a little revenue.
I have never known anyone who did something wrong who didn't find some way to rationalize it. Is wrong of me to filch from my neighbor because he has a small house but because he has a big house, all bets are off?
Is it inherently "right" to protect the interests of hugely wealthy people/corporations , thereby assuring they can amass more wealth at the cost of others whose standard of living is plummeting?
(1) Do you punish people for success?
(1a) What would be the incentive for a company to grow or a person to work past a certain point if this were the case?
(2) Are rights stripped of a person/organization because of success?
Now I'm not talking about granting them extra rights but it sounded from your post like you were talking about taking AWAY rights, that you still assume the rest of us will be able to enjoy. Am I wrong?
(3) Last I checked, the standard of living in industrialized countries has increased dramatically. The standard of living of the top 1% has increased even more -- which increases the gap between those who have a lot and those who do not -- but "the poor" can afford to eat and buy shoes and have indoor plumbing and all sorts of things that they didn't used to have in America and still don't have in large parts of the world that have systems in place like what you are describing where private property is not protected -- I'd be curious to know the mechanism you have in mind that will somehow punish those who have become "too rich" which would not incidentally hurt the poor. (I'd also be curious to know why you seem interested in punishing the rich.)
morals are extremely hazy and have to be taken purely on a case by case basis.
Uhhh... I don't even know where to begin. This is precisely the reason for laws. I personally reject that sort blanket moral relativism. You appear to follow it. The law is in place so that both of us know where we stand and can have some chance of avoiding the favoritism that comes from lawlessness. In a system where there is not this rule of law, there will still be strong people and still be weak people. And without law, the strong will be unchecked. Just something to think about... It cuts both ways.
(PS: I really do appreciate the debate and don't mean to come off as curt -- it is just that that last post cried out for a response!)
We do not live in a classic-capitalism utopia where companies are ethical and let competition strive ; we live in a world where giant corporations enjoy being on top to gain huge piles of money, namely because of the underlying "greed" capitalism is based on. I've always found strange that on one hand, capitalists explain their position with a greed-as-human-nature argument while on the other hand assuming that this greed will be refrained for some Common Good. Greed has never been a matter of common good, it's about gaining and preserving power. Capitalism is not concerned with morals and ethics, and that's why it cannot stand alone as a worldview.
Wow. You really could stand to take a basic economics course. Seriously.
I'm glad that you used the word "utopia" in your post since it seems that that is what you are after. The last time I checked, the world is filled with people who claw to get ahead, screw over their neighbors and bend the rules as far as they can to do whatever it is that they want to do. The magic of capitalism is that, rather than prescribing some set of ethical behaviors and assuming that everyone else will get on board, it is able to INCORPORATE this very greed that you talk about and Common Good comes out of it.
The fact of the matter is that every time Communism has been tried, it has led to rather rampant cronyism and disincentives for people to produce anything more than the exact amount demanded of them.
I don't believe that an economic system can be concerned with morals and ethics -- that is for an ethical system, a moral system -- that is for the people to step up and do. We certainly aren't there yet. It makes me sad to see this. The world could be a much better place if we were. But capitalism as a system is able to refine this greed and transform it into the Common Good. Check out the living standards of people living in countries with capitalism versus those with communism sometime. Witness South Korea before and after getting with the program. Witness Japan, with almost NO natural resources versus China. (And speaking of China, have you seen what has happened to the standard of living there in the last 20 years since moving to a market economy? I'm not talking about a few wealthy people in the cities... I'm talking about people in rural areas getting electricity. I'm talking about things like regular people getting air conditioners and dishwashers and being able to afford computers...
There are excesses with our system. There are problems that we can spot and things tweak. No system is a pure system and no one claims that it should be. (As just one small example, nobody claims that Canada is anything but capitalistic and yet they somehow manage to provide health care to everyone living there.) But if you are going to attack capitalism itself without proposing some alternative -- and one which will work IN SPITE of the fact that PEOPLE (not just "the system" are the ones who are greedy and will presumably remain that way) then you will get responses like these reminding you that we live in the real world.
Kicking out people who sneak into a show is hardly invasive. Tracking your downloading habits is quite a different issue.
Here, you and I couldn't agree more. I think the lengths to which the RIAA and MPAA have gone to track and blackmail people accused of violating copyright is alarming...and I fear the worst is yet to come.
I think it is fair to say that wholesale, widespread theft (sharing without the express consent of the original copyright holder, whatever you want to call it) of a product might call into question the distribution method an industry uses to get to market --the **AA ignores this at its peril. But it in no way excuses the action of individuals taking a product without the copyright holder's consent. I think the concert hall analogy is valid in that the owner of the establishment is in the right in asserting that you should not be taking their product without paying.
I mean, isn't that at the heart of this? Honestly admitting that individuals should not be taking this product does not give the **AA carte blanche to do whatever they want to go after offenders. If you're stealing a CD from Wal-Mart, they can't shoot you... there are limits. Defining the limits is part of how the issue will eventually be resolved. For the discussion to be fruitful, we should focus on the actual issues at hand and not try to defend something that, in the end, is indefensible.
Actually, I did read the Harvard study and I found it fascinating. But I suppose that is part of my point... we could get into a he-said/she-said pissing match about how much it hurts sales, what the net effect is, etc. But that's entirely incidental, isn't it? There's a number of different ways you could spin this all. You could point out that people have a fairly fixed amount that they are willing to budget for entertainment. If they find tracks that they really want from a certain artist, sales will go down on these particular tracks but they'll still have that much more money to spend on harder to find tracks. The aggregate effect might be neither an increase or a decrease in overall sales but this doesn't take away from the fact that money that would have been spent on the one artist is now going to a different artist. (Say what you will about how little artists might make, with our current model their contracts/future contracts are based on sales. If you cut into that, you hurt them. Period.) You could point out that a lot of filesharing is done by under-20somethings with a limited budget who would not have otherwise made that purchase. But simply because they would not have purchased the thing doesn't make it right for them to suddenly have a copy in their possession...
Like it or hate it, the owners of the copyright on these works are the ones who get to determine who gets to listen. If I am hosting a concert and the hall isn't at capacity, should I be compelled to overlook everyone else sneaking in the door after 8PM until the hall is filled just because there are empty seats? Does your sneaking in make it OK? (No one else was hurt, the seat was just sitting there.) There is the much larger question of the right of companies to license their product to individuals as they see fit. This is a question of property rights. I know it isn't popular to talk about property rights on Slashdot. But it is important to look at the historical context of ownership and look at what happens in counties/cultures where those rights are not respected...What happens to innovation and what happens to the capital? And there are important counter-question about the rights of individuals in this context, too. These are the questions that should be addressed/answered. The other ones about the money made/lost are distractions. Debating the question of money lost won't get us anywhere. Debating the larger questions will allow us to reach the consensus that we (all of us) will eventually need to...
They claim they lose billions of dollars a year as a result of P2P sharing, but those numbers are based on some faulty assumptions. The main one is that people who illegally download copyrighted material would have otherwise purchased that material. Of course I don't have hard evidence that the assumption is false, but ask yourself, have you deprived anyone of business lately as a result of your illegal file-sharing?
It is intellectually dishonest to try to defend this action by saying that the "billions of dollars lost" claimed by the **AA is inflated. Let's assume for a moment that those numbers are inflated. Of course they are inflated. Maybe they don't lose $3 billion/year from people "sharing" copyrighted material. Maybe they "only" lose $100 million. Or maybe they "only" lose $50 million. Whatever that number might turn out to be, the number is a real, statistically significant value. The fact of the matter is that people who trade software/songs/IP are cutting into the revenues of the companies that fund the production of this work and the artists who create it, however small their final cut may be...
There is a fascinating discussion that can be had around copyright/IP reform on its own merits -- but claiming that the **AA numbers are "inflated" is not the place from which to launch. You're getting caught up in details that do nothing to further your case...
Thanks for the clarification... but I guess I'm still stuck on the great(-great?) grandparent post's question: How do we know that there is a thought. I don't care if we use the words "I think therefore I am" or "I am self-aware therefore I am." I agree that they are functionally equivilant and can be interchanged without changing the meaning.
The experience of self-awareness, at least within YOU, the thinker, is something that you can be certain of. Now, when we extend that outwards to apply to others, it can get fuzzy and you have to build up chains of logic and reasoning and make basic assumptions... but the original idea -- that YOU, pjt33, are in fact thinking(/self-aware) as you read this at this very moment does, in fact, prove that you exist.
OK, explain to me again the difference between thinking and self-awareness.
Would it be fair to say that all things that are self-aware must think? But not all things that think must be self-aware?
More to the point... why are we figuring out these shades of meaning? Both are true in your case, are they not? Is this a question of semantics or do you have a deeper meaning I am missing?
I guess that was the point of my grandparent post -- we DO have the awareness of the thought existing. You do. Right now. Reading this. You DO have a thought. And the fact that you have a thought means that it is quite likely that others out there who look like you are probably not some elaborately manufactured ruse to "trick you" but rather things built much the same as you with the same internal processes including self-awareness. (At least they also claim this and it seems likely to be true...) (And if it IS true, then many other things follow, including...)
See... that's the point. You can't divorce YOURSELF and YOUR experience when reading Descarte. Cogito ego sum doesn't have to apply to all things -- just you -- at least initially -- and then see what follows...
OK, I'll bite. (I'm not quite sure why I'm feeding the trolls -- maybe it's the wine... maybe it is because I've recently decided to toss my hat in the ring with the believers again, in spite of all their closed-minded arrogant anti-intellectualism... I can't help but believe that there is Truth, capital T, when it comes to believing... anyway...)
I'd be curious to know about these "logically broken proofs" that you speak of, especially in regards to Descartes. Frankly, I think that it has become so cliché to say that Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" (Cogito ergo sum) proves nothing... when there really is a fairly powerful statement being made there. I mean, seriously, every single one of you reading that statement is self-aware. You aren't an automaton. You really are self-aware. You are reading those words and considering its meaning. Occam's Razor dictates that you don't set up some sort of over-complicated rationalization for the fact that other people might not "actually" be there -- so if you begin to follow the logical chain of reasoning that follows... well... a lot does follow. I'm not trying to be argumentative and I know I'll most certainly make it onto people's foes list for even suggesting this... but I really would like to know the logical reasoning that you have for having "broken" the proof of Descartes.
Slashdot Mirror
From the summary: Two much comfort, and the car rolls and pitches a lot
I don't know what's more disturbing: The obvious spelling error in the article summary or that fact that, six hours later, not a single nerd has thought it important enough to mention...
Is it possible that I am the only one who cringed when reading "two much"????
Well, in Penteli mountain, there are verified gravitational anomalies (there are also a hell lot more noted in the Hellenic space by physicists).
Who mods this crap up? "NATO was interested" and "gravitational anomalies"?!? WTF!? I thought we were nerds here...
"Gravity hills" are nothing more than optical illusions, Penteli mountain included. Check out this link for more information. (shakes head at the state of "science" here on Slashdot... double shakes at the tin foil hat wearing mods...)
Your words are very kind but remember that this all took place nearly thirty years ago. While I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for my mother to lose a baby, it never struck me as abnormal or harsh or whatever. I was young enough that everything that happened merely happened... normal was defined as whatever happened to me and my family. I suspect that's the way it is with everyone.
The point you bring up about the very young and the very old taking a beating from everyday diseases is a rather insightful one. Whether it is food borne illness or West Nile, attacks that otherwise healthy people can fend off are often fatal for those with compromised immune systems...
Not to be too fatalistic about this whole thread but please remember that no one lives forever. The means by which a person dies may seem cruel or sudden but the fact of the matter is that none of us have a snowball's chance in hell in making it through life alive. Death is quite natural.
What the hell is wrong with people?! Is chicken pox -- as a child -- really so bad?
For what it's worth, it can be. My brother and sisters and I all caught chicken pox in the winter of 1977. I had a pretty mild case as did my brother older sister. My little sister, though -- she was 10 months old at the time -- ended up getting meningitis (inflammation of the brain) and died from it. Having complications that severe might be uncommon but it still happens. I still get a knot in my stomach when I hear that a friend's child has chicken pox. I understand (intellectually) they'll probably be fine... but it doesn't stop me from getting a little freaked.
Baby, someone's gotta moderate this comment to the moon! You know it's true!!!
540 in the house, 52 in the senate. If you have problems with the number in the house, I suggest that you try google.
No offense but are you smoking crack?
There are 435 members of the House of Representatives.
There are 100 Senators.
This is a total of 535 members. Not sure where you got your crazy numbers from but maybe, again, "googling" for a quick answer is no substitue for actually KNOWING these things...? I don't know. Some people would say knowing about how your government works is sort of important. Knowing basic stuff like "Each state has 2 senators (for a total of 100) and their number of representatives proportionally alloted based on the population of the state from the last census... that, in fact, is why we HAVE a census every ten years...)"
To answer your comment: I wouldn't say I have a problem with the number in the house... I just have a problem with your faulty reporting of that number.
It's more like the opinions of the 592 individual Americans in congress, the 1 person that matters in the White House, and 7 in the supreme court (although they don't have as immediate impact as the other 593 peopls.)
Uh... everyone seems to be pointing out that there are 9 members of the Supreme Court -- but why has it been over five hours and not a single person comments that there are 535 members of Congress, not "592"?
Geeks get pissed when "regular lusers" can't be bothered to learn the fundamentals about the computers that they use each and every day... they can spend hours getting into the nitty-gritty details of whether the 11th movie in a series will accurately reflect a throw-away comment from a low-budget TV series that was yanked 35 years ago... but they can't be bothered to know how many people are in Congress? Why do you think we have these lemmings, anyway? Would you like to borrow a mirror for a moment?
1984 would require surveilance in the privacy of your own home, tracking your sexual habits, hobbies, et cetera. Keeping track of everywhere you go, your political opinions, and taking action against you for them. It will be 1984 when your television records YOU.
OK, what if it's not my television, though? What if it's my computer? What if my web browser, my cookies, my SPYWARE starts tracking and compiling all of the above? What then? Does it have to be the government doing the tracking? What if the government can just buy the commercially available database that is being sold based on the above information which is being tracked?
Honestly curious what Slashdotters have to say about this one...
My philosophy on self awareness is that an being is self aware when it has the capacity to perceive how other beings perceive it, or the world. I.E. being able to look through someone else's eyes.
Hmmm... but then by that test, most household pets are obviously self aware, as anyone who has ever been upset with a cat or a dog will attest to. Animals are enormously empathic and quite capable of perceiving whether we are happy or upset with them. I had a cat, Tabby, who would always leave the room when I was upset with something she had done.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your measurement. It just strikes me at first glance as being overly simplistic. It is possible that many reptiles/birds/fish/mammals may be self-aware... but I'd say you might want to refine your definition at least a little. How would a computer programmed to recognize a furrowing brow, the narrowing of the eyes or a quickening pulse and responding by increasing processor speed or some other way not fall under this definition, too? Would you argue that this computer is suddenly self aware because it is programmed to observe (and respond) to our reactions to it?
Actually I have two of them, but why ask if you're not going to believe my answer?
I'll believe. I'm more than interested. So how about you share with me? Seriously.
Stopping the progress of science and civilization for an extended navel-gazing session doesn't sound very interesting, though. It would shift the custodianship of scientific power away from the scientists and towards the politicians, the philosophers, or, heaven forbid, the priests. Bad move for civilization, IMHO
...but I posit -- and am fully prepared to get flamed like there is no tomorrow as a result -- that at least the priests and the philosophers think about the problems of the day and aren't addicted to this real-time realpolitik which plagues us. I think you made a lot of really great points in your post but this is one popular position with which I take issue. Other than the nature of power to consolidate itself...which is a function of being human...which means it may never go away ... what is your issue with the priests and the philosophers taking on the custodianship of things for a while? Seriously...?
Why is this YHO (your humble opinion), anyway? Sure, the priests, when they have power, tend to see things in very black and white terms and use their power to perpetuate that power. Just like the kings and the nobility did. Just like the political parties do today. That's just a function of power...
You might not know what you are talking about here. I personally own the NZ-90 -- I picked it up on a super sale, open box discount, rebate, etc. etc. I was going to buy a digital camera that day -- I was prepared to spend over $200 for just a camera but I picked up an NZ-90 for $199. GREAT 2 megapixel camera that takes some amazing pictures. Audio recorder. MP3 player. Brilliant 320x480 screen. The pivoting thing actually makes a lot of sense depending on if you are viewing data or using the PDA to take pictures and the mechanism is amazingly sturdy.
If I have a complaint about my NZ-90, it is how sturdy the thing is. It is a BRICK, weighing in at just over 10 oz. Sony managed to pack a TON of features into a very small space. But I love it. And FLIMSY it is not... I use it to read books, take pictures, play MP3s, record video journals, capture audio in meetings... Pocket Quicken and Datebk5 make me look like I am actually organized. Mapopolis is incredible for getting around Minneapolis (and the 320x480 resolution is VERY welcome with maps!). I can review any document file in its native (PDF, DOC, XLS) format. And, of course, the games....
Sorry but not everyone on Slashdot is too cool to let "Sony = bad" groupthink get in the way of appreciating a really great piece of hardware...
No, it's because there's only really one power capable of winning such a war.
I have lots of thoughts about what you wrote but I'll keep my post brief.
How, exactly, does anyone "win" a nuclear war? Seriously. I am curious to know your thoughts on this.
Then Bill Gates gets to own Google....
...ah, a man can dream...
Has anybody stopped to consider the opposite? I mean, on an NPR report earlier this week some of the numbers I heard tossed around were that this IPO could net Google upwards of $20 billion. But this is google we are talking about. Everybody and their grandmother uses google. Everybody. Google gets so much of what they do right. Let's just play make believe, just for a moment, and imagine what would happen if the bidding gets fast and furious. What would happen if, instead of $20 billion, somehow the IPO gets out of control and raises $200 billion? (We are playing make believe, remember.) Microsoft currently has a market capitalization of around $300 billion... In this imaginary world, wouldn't it be possible for this new, cash-bloated-Google-with-teeth to make a bid for Microsoft...?
Humans have always felt a close relationship with the tools they use to get their work done. We have unearthed hunters from many thousands of years ago who were buried with their tools. You see people feel a kinship with their (book collection/music collection/car/favorite pair of jeans/lucky lighter/favorite pen) -- It appears to be in our nature to anthropomorphize things that we frequently interact with or associate with ourselves. We become accustomed to the particular quirks of these objects. The noises they make. The little things that need to be done to allow them to operate optimally. Why would computers be any different? I don't have a bow and arrow but I use my Sony Vaio every day to do my work. Human nature doesn't change just because the tools have...
Just my two cents...
you write a few sentences apart that Common Good results from capitalism, and that an economic system can't be concerned with morals and ethics
Hmmm... I honestly don't see the contradiction. What I was trying to get at -- and maybe didn't state it as clearly as I meant -- was that the Common Good results from capitalism... in spite of the fact that people are all independent agents and in spite of the fact that perhaps none of them are considering that their actions will bring about that good. It is that very selfish activity of the independent agents that brings about the increase in capital. It provides the incentive to work harder. It encourages others who spot inefficiency to "build a better mousetrap".
I think new ideas, new way of thinking about the world is how change eventually takes place. But I'll admit to a healthy dose of skepticism when I read the term anarcho-syndicalism. I agree with what you had to say about how a mass-mindset won't happen tomorrow... and would repeat my earlier question of what is to be done before this utopian change of heart comes about.
I'd also be curious to know how problems like the free-rider, the fact that people slack when the boss is gone, speed when the police aren't looking and advocate stealing from the rich (see the great-grandparent post) could be addressed without changing our very genetic makeup. Selfishness has some powerfully strong survival advantage which means it is pretty hard-coded into our DNA. Just something to consider...
I, too, find this debate productive but it appears that you and I have a lot to debate...
Many who pirate software, say from M$, may feel that they are doing the world good by depriving M$ of a little revenue.
I have never known anyone who did something wrong who didn't find some way to rationalize it. Is wrong of me to filch from my neighbor because he has a small house but because he has a big house, all bets are off?
Is it inherently "right" to protect the interests of hugely wealthy people/corporations , thereby assuring they can amass more wealth at the cost of others whose standard of living is plummeting?
(1) Do you punish people for success?
(1a) What would be the incentive for a company to grow or a person to work past a certain point if this were the case?
(2) Are rights stripped of a person/organization because of success?
Now I'm not talking about granting them extra rights but it sounded from your post like you were talking about taking AWAY rights, that you still assume the rest of us will be able to enjoy. Am I wrong?
(3) Last I checked, the standard of living in industrialized countries has increased dramatically. The standard of living of the top 1% has increased even more -- which increases the gap between those who have a lot and those who do not -- but "the poor" can afford to eat and buy shoes and have indoor plumbing and all sorts of things that they didn't used to have in America and still don't have in large parts of the world that have systems in place like what you are describing where private property is not protected -- I'd be curious to know the mechanism you have in mind that will somehow punish those who have become "too rich" which would not incidentally hurt the poor. (I'd also be curious to know why you seem interested in punishing the rich.)
morals are extremely hazy and have to be taken purely on a case by case basis.
Uhhh... I don't even know where to begin. This is precisely the reason for laws. I personally reject that sort blanket moral relativism. You appear to follow it. The law is in place so that both of us know where we stand and can have some chance of avoiding the favoritism that comes from lawlessness. In a system where there is not this rule of law, there will still be strong people and still be weak people. And without law, the strong will be unchecked. Just something to think about... It cuts both ways.
(PS: I really do appreciate the debate and don't mean to come off as curt -- it is just that that last post cried out for a response!)
We do not live in a classic-capitalism utopia where companies are ethical and let competition strive ; we live in a world where giant corporations enjoy being on top to gain huge piles of money, namely because of the underlying "greed" capitalism is based on. I've always found strange that on one hand, capitalists explain their position with a greed-as-human-nature argument while on the other hand assuming that this greed will be refrained for some Common Good. Greed has never been a matter of common good, it's about gaining and preserving power. Capitalism is not concerned with morals and ethics, and that's why it cannot stand alone as a worldview.
Wow. You really could stand to take a basic economics course. Seriously.
I'm glad that you used the word "utopia" in your post since it seems that that is what you are after. The last time I checked, the world is filled with people who claw to get ahead, screw over their neighbors and bend the rules as far as they can to do whatever it is that they want to do. The magic of capitalism is that, rather than prescribing some set of ethical behaviors and assuming that everyone else will get on board, it is able to INCORPORATE this very greed that you talk about and Common Good comes out of it.
The fact of the matter is that every time Communism has been tried, it has led to rather rampant cronyism and disincentives for people to produce anything more than the exact amount demanded of them.
I don't believe that an economic system can be concerned with morals and ethics -- that is for an ethical system, a moral system -- that is for the people to step up and do. We certainly aren't there yet. It makes me sad to see this. The world could be a much better place if we were. But capitalism as a system is able to refine this greed and transform it into the Common Good. Check out the living standards of people living in countries with capitalism versus those with communism sometime. Witness South Korea before and after getting with the program. Witness Japan, with almost NO natural resources versus China. (And speaking of China, have you seen what has happened to the standard of living there in the last 20 years since moving to a market economy? I'm not talking about a few wealthy people in the cities... I'm talking about people in rural areas getting electricity. I'm talking about things like regular people getting air conditioners and dishwashers and being able to afford computers...
There are excesses with our system. There are problems that we can spot and things tweak. No system is a pure system and no one claims that it should be. (As just one small example, nobody claims that Canada is anything but capitalistic and yet they somehow manage to provide health care to everyone living there.) But if you are going to attack capitalism itself without proposing some alternative -- and one which will work IN SPITE of the fact that PEOPLE (not just "the system" are the ones who are greedy and will presumably remain that way) then you will get responses like these reminding you that we live in the real world.
Kicking out people who sneak into a show is hardly invasive. Tracking your downloading habits is quite a different issue.
Here, you and I couldn't agree more. I think the lengths to which the RIAA and MPAA have gone to track and blackmail people accused of violating copyright is alarming...and I fear the worst is yet to come.
I think it is fair to say that wholesale, widespread theft (sharing without the express consent of the original copyright holder, whatever you want to call it) of a product might call into question the distribution method an industry uses to get to market --the **AA ignores this at its peril. But it in no way excuses the action of individuals taking a product without the copyright holder's consent. I think the concert hall analogy is valid in that the owner of the establishment is in the right in asserting that you should not be taking their product without paying.
I mean, isn't that at the heart of this? Honestly admitting that individuals should not be taking this product does not give the **AA carte blanche to do whatever they want to go after offenders. If you're stealing a CD from Wal-Mart, they can't shoot you... there are limits. Defining the limits is part of how the issue will eventually be resolved. For the discussion to be fruitful, we should focus on the actual issues at hand and not try to defend something that, in the end, is indefensible.
Just my two cents.
VERY good point.
Actually, I did read the Harvard study and I found it fascinating. But I suppose that is part of my point... we could get into a he-said/she-said pissing match about how much it hurts sales, what the net effect is, etc. But that's entirely incidental, isn't it? There's a number of different ways you could spin this all. You could point out that people have a fairly fixed amount that they are willing to budget for entertainment. If they find tracks that they really want from a certain artist, sales will go down on these particular tracks but they'll still have that much more money to spend on harder to find tracks. The aggregate effect might be neither an increase or a decrease in overall sales but this doesn't take away from the fact that money that would have been spent on the one artist is now going to a different artist. (Say what you will about how little artists might make, with our current model their contracts/future contracts are based on sales. If you cut into that, you hurt them. Period.) You could point out that a lot of filesharing is done by under-20somethings with a limited budget who would not have otherwise made that purchase. But simply because they would not have purchased the thing doesn't make it right for them to suddenly have a copy in their possession...
Like it or hate it, the owners of the copyright on these works are the ones who get to determine who gets to listen. If I am hosting a concert and the hall isn't at capacity, should I be compelled to overlook everyone else sneaking in the door after 8PM until the hall is filled just because there are empty seats? Does your sneaking in make it OK? (No one else was hurt, the seat was just sitting there.) There is the much larger question of the right of companies to license their product to individuals as they see fit. This is a question of property rights. I know it isn't popular to talk about property rights on Slashdot. But it is important to look at the historical context of ownership and look at what happens in counties/cultures where those rights are not respected...What happens to innovation and what happens to the capital? And there are important counter-question about the rights of individuals in this context, too. These are the questions that should be addressed/answered. The other ones about the money made/lost are distractions. Debating the question of money lost won't get us anywhere. Debating the larger questions will allow us to reach the consensus that we (all of us) will eventually need to...
They claim they lose billions of dollars a year as a result of P2P sharing, but those numbers are based on some faulty assumptions. The main one is that people who illegally download copyrighted material would have otherwise purchased that material. Of course I don't have hard evidence that the assumption is false, but ask yourself, have you deprived anyone of business lately as a result of your illegal file-sharing?
It is intellectually dishonest to try to defend this action by saying that the "billions of dollars lost" claimed by the **AA is inflated. Let's assume for a moment that those numbers are inflated. Of course they are inflated. Maybe they don't lose $3 billion/year from people "sharing" copyrighted material. Maybe they "only" lose $100 million. Or maybe they "only" lose $50 million. Whatever that number might turn out to be, the number is a real, statistically significant value. The fact of the matter is that people who trade software/songs/IP are cutting into the revenues of the companies that fund the production of this work and the artists who create it, however small their final cut may be...
There is a fascinating discussion that can be had around copyright/IP reform on its own merits -- but claiming that the **AA numbers are "inflated" is not the place from which to launch. You're getting caught up in details that do nothing to further your case...
Thanks for the clarification ... but I guess I'm still stuck on the great(-great?) grandparent post's question: How do we know that there is a thought. I don't care if we use the words "I think therefore I am" or "I am self-aware therefore I am." I agree that they are functionally equivilant and can be interchanged without changing the meaning.
The experience of self-awareness, at least within YOU, the thinker, is something that you can be certain of. Now, when we extend that outwards to apply to others, it can get fuzzy and you have to build up chains of logic and reasoning and make basic assumptions... but the original idea -- that YOU, pjt33, are in fact thinking(/self-aware) as you read this at this very moment does, in fact, prove that you exist.
OK, explain to me again the difference between thinking and self-awareness.
Would it be fair to say that all things that are self-aware must think? But not all things that think must be self-aware?
More to the point... why are we figuring out these shades of meaning? Both are true in your case, are they not? Is this a question of semantics or do you have a deeper meaning I am missing?
I guess that was the point of my grandparent post -- we DO have the awareness of the thought existing. You do. Right now. Reading this. You DO have a thought. And the fact that you have a thought means that it is quite likely that others out there who look like you are probably not some elaborately manufactured ruse to "trick you" but rather things built much the same as you with the same internal processes including self-awareness. (At least they also claim this and it seems likely to be true...) (And if it IS true, then many other things follow, including...)
See... that's the point. You can't divorce YOURSELF and YOUR experience when reading Descarte. Cogito ego sum doesn't have to apply to all things -- just you -- at least initially -- and then see what follows...
OK, I'll bite. (I'm not quite sure why I'm feeding the trolls -- maybe it's the wine... maybe it is because I've recently decided to toss my hat in the ring with the believers again, in spite of all their closed-minded arrogant anti-intellectualism... I can't help but believe that there is Truth, capital T, when it comes to believing... anyway...)
...just wondering...
I'd be curious to know about these "logically broken proofs" that you speak of, especially in regards to Descartes. Frankly, I think that it has become so cliché to say that Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" (Cogito ergo sum) proves nothing... when there really is a fairly powerful statement being made there. I mean, seriously, every single one of you reading that statement is self-aware. You aren't an automaton. You really are self-aware. You are reading those words and considering its meaning. Occam's Razor dictates that you don't set up some sort of over-complicated rationalization for the fact that other people might not "actually" be there -- so if you begin to follow the logical chain of reasoning that follows... well... a lot does follow. I'm not trying to be argumentative and I know I'll most certainly make it onto people's foes list for even suggesting this... but I really would like to know the logical reasoning that you have for having "broken" the proof of Descartes.