Yes, it is a very similar comment. The very same point applied... and many people keep missing the point:
1- There are two group entities involved in both cases: a minority who controls a situation (group A), and a larger group of not-in-control people (group B).
2- The belief of an artificial need for both groups was created/sold
3- A technology "solution" was applied, again for both groups to use
4- In both cases, group B has almost no say in the matter, yet it affects them much more than group A. Group A typically creates and implements the solution, and "encourages/forces" group B to use it.
In both cases, the solution creates as many or more problems for group B as they had in the past. The solution is primarily oriented toward solving the fake "problem" for group B but in fact, what it does is increase the control Group A has over Group B. It makes the administration task for A easier and cheaper, while unequivocally diminishing the freedom for individuals in group B.
Given all that -- how do you conclude my comment was "spam"? I'm not selling anything here. This problem happens ALL THE TIME, and people don't see it.
In these two cases, the technology really only helps the diminishing minority - the minority who controls the situation have an easier time doing their job. It is sold do the majority crowd to solve a fake problem - one created mostly because the minority group is not really doing their job very well.
You, mr passive AC are part of the problem here. You might consider carefully this quote by novelist George Bernanos...it goes like this:
"I have thought for a long time now that if, some day, the increasing efficiency for the technique of destruction finally causes our species to disappear from the earth, it will not be cruelty that will be responsible for our extinction and still less, of course, the indignation that cruelty awakens and the reprisals and vengeance that it brings upon itself...but the docility, the lack of responsibility of the modern man, his base subservient acceptance of every common decree. The horrors that we have seen, the still greater horrors we shall presently see, are not signs that the rebels, the insubordinate, untamable men are increasing in number throughout the world, but rather that there is a constant increase in the number of obedient, docile men."
Or a better analogy is: Flour and eggs are flour and eggs, not a cake.
An embryo would NOT become a human on its own, and this is why we do not treat it as a human. On its own, an embryo stops growing and developing, almost immediately.
An embryo cannot communicate at all, thus it cannot consent. Trees communicate and react more than embryos do, and there is no moral problem keeping and controlling trees as property.
Asserting 21 days for the start of life is absurd and slanted to support your religious point of view. You have called an anonymous "expert" to justify your position. Please list for me the volitional actions a 21-day old ball of human cells takes that are indicative of life. (I think that there are none.) In return, I'll list all the things that living things commonly do that a 21-day old ball of cells cannot.
Raising the question of voluntary action (and thus consent) makes no sense if the item in question cannot take any volitional action.
and the people will want the controls placed on them.
because it seemed easier
because it seemed faster
because it seemed safer
because I was afraid
because I thought I had to
because it was more expensive if I didn't let them do it
becuase it wasn't worth fighting any more for freedom
because if I refused, the terrorists would win
because everyone else was doing it
a system like this- services for kids in school seems simple, seems good - but it is a wolf in sheeps clothing. These students are being taught to use a system that is ultimately not in their own interests.
But in the end it won't matter how they get you to give up your humanity and your freedom, you will not be able to get it back once you are chipped, tracked, and recorded. Other people will "manage" your finances, your access rights, and your permissions -- all electronically and under one central system. It will make 1984 look appealing: at least they could hide from the telescreen in some corners of their world. The idea of dissent will fade from the collective understanding.
If you have not seen it yet, the Zeitgeist movie http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ covers this pretty well. Like sheep herded in the yard, dumb people who just can't seem to stop the TV long enough to figure out that centralized control of their life makes them no longer free.
in California, when you get a license to drive on public roads, you "pre-agree" to several things, like being searched and submitting to intoxication tests. it is a pre-requisite of getting a license to drive on the roads.
About 5 years ago, this man would have been in the right. Today, sadly, with the traitors running our country and the evisceration of our Constitutional right, this man will probably be in the wrong.
I have a serious person problem with the tactics to these stores - for me it is Costco and Frys. I chose not to remain a Costco member, because their "membership agreement" states I pre-authorize them and agree to be searched on exiting te premises. The member agreement says it in nice way - "cooperate with store policies", but it is there. My confrontation ended with me walking away not searched.
Frys is different - a CA electronics store (ie not a member-based club) with huge selection, dumb help, and mid- to high- prices. If you need it right now, you can usually get it at Frys. They search you on exit too. I brought this up with a lawyer friend and a law student studying transaction law. My understanding was that at the register, the transaction is over - with receipt in hand. Further requests to open your bags are unequivocally a search and directly against the 4th Amendment, to the extent we still have one.
They problem here basically is profit margins. It is really difficult (expensive) to keep people from stealing in these big mega stores. mega stores are efficient - lots of products, few employees. Camera systems, radio tags, electronic means can all be avoided - and losses are difficult to deal with. The easy solution for these stores is to induce fear in their customers that they will be searched when they exit. It is much cheaper for the store to keep two people at the door than any other method, but it is a terrible precedent for freedom, and for being treated like a criminal when you're not.
And thus in one line he perpetuates the "Religious" attitude that our bodies and our desires are bad. In reality-land, sex is good, it is healthy, and we would all be better off be teaching everyone how to have more safe, more healthy sex with each other. Teaching people to be open, honest and get their needs met. People would be healthier and happier and without as much conflict.
Religious organizations artificially create an absurd conflict and make people feel GUILTY for wanting sex and following their natural instincts. At the same time, these same organizations offer the SOLUTION for their false, induced and irrational guilt: prayer and devotion, and giving money to the church!
And people fall for it!
In my opinion, there is NO defense for the position taken by major organized religions.
All evil stems initially from and is, at its core, fueled essentially by denial.
All the other factors and causes of evil acts: isolation, anger, retribution, and many others can be tracked back to people who deny reality, to people who live and believe the myths and stories, and use that denial to fuel acts of evil.
The Pope, and more broadly the Christians, purport the biggest myth of them all: that a all-knowing, all-power man in sky is always watching you, and he is vengeful and will send you to burn in Hell if you're bad, but he loves you.
By Myth, I mean a story that is widely believed, but not factual. Broad dissemination of non-factual religious myths allows and supports a society with many other myths and many lies - all popular and all broadly believed. Most people to live in a state of denial about their lives, and a small number, in extreme denial commit evil acts.
Strangely, the all-knowing, all-power creator of the universe needs a lot of donations of money from the mortals. What a gig.
I'm no fan of big businesses. Google is better than most. I'll take tax-evading, corrupt businesses over the Christians any day of the week. At least the businesses are not trying to guilt and manipulate people into parting with their money; they are doing the same corrupt actions as the governments taking the taxes.
talk about a great example of how fast computers are changing the world! 10 years later, and 2 academics can hobble together a $2500 that has twice the performance of the IBM flagship, technology showcasing supercomputer.
and the people will want the controls placed on them.
because it seemed easier
because it seemed faster
because it seemed safer
because I was afraid
because I thought I had to
because it was more expensive if I didn't let them do it
becuase it wasn't worth fighting any more for freedom
because if I refused, the terrorists would win
because everyone else was doing it
and in the end it won't matter how they get you to give up your humanity and your freedom, you will not be able to get it back once you are chipped, tracked, and recorded. Other people will "manage" your finances, your access rights, and your permissions -- all electronically and under one central system. It will make 1984 look appealing: at least they could hide from the telescreen in some corners of their world. The idea of dissent will fade from the collective understanding.
If you have not seen it yet, the Zeitgeist movie http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ covers this pretty well. Like sheep herded in the yard, dumb people who just can't seem to stop the TV long enough to figure out that centralized control of their life makes them no longer free.
I have no problem with this system. I think it is GREAT that those charged to protect our interests (our government) has the ability to catch criminals efficiently. What I DO have a problem with is the lack of an independent judiciary to oversee the use of this power, and the absurd lack of transparency with its existence and use. Without these, this is simply another tool for enabling tyranny.
With the end of the cold war, I was hopeful that the ideological conflict between the west and the rest of the world was over. It looked like China was opening up.
It appears, with stories like this and many others, not to be the case. China is obviously acting in ways that are not good for people - as defined by Western standards of freedom. Unlike Russia, they do not appear to have the financial decay leading to an eventual collapse.
I've heard people argue that no one will go to war with China - the stakes are too high. Frankly, I'd rather see a massive 3rd world war than have the world societies slip silently into a death-like state like that the of Chinese government oppression.
strangely, the way I see the law, the judge is right on this. just because it is volatile, does not mean it is any less incriminating.
the problem here is(are) the law(s), not the judge's interpretation.
copyright is completely out of control, and *NO* reasonable discussion on any issue regarding rights for copyright holders has merit (IMHO) until the copyright terms are fixed - meaning, significantly reduced. I don't advocate copyright elimination - it is valid and useful thing to have - just that the tampering with the law by these big companies has given them exactly the opposite that they expected - they have people who don't take it seriously because it is so far skewed against the public interest.
The current state of affairs has as much or more wealth disparity (depending on how you measure it) as any time in human history. It's just that now the ones at the very top of the heap are legal entities (trusts, funds, companies) but the control of those very top entities is still only about 10K people of the 6B on the planet.
Your observations are correct - but to counter, no one is an island, especially the rich and powerful. Take away the people who wash the car, cook their food, guard their door - and what power would they have? What good is all their money when no one uses money any more? No, in a world without property - reputation is king and it leads to resources. Getting there would feel like a step backwards at first - many of the "rich and powerful" don't want to lose what they have. But really, there are lots more people in the other camp, and you just can't make enough guns and troops to suppress the whole population of the world.
It is stories like this that keep me as a vocal and vehement opponent to Microsoft. In my view, this business and its practices are examples for all that is wrong with software today.
property is a convention. we all agree there is some mapping between resources and people (entities) that "own" them. well, most of us agree, except the thieves. in the old way, resources were all physical things, mostly. people traded items for money, and the item went from one owner to another.
increasingly, many companies have found that the common understanding of property does not work very well any more. informaion is more easily copied than transferred - and the recipient has a lesser right usually to use the information purchased than the original owner. hence the world is fighting a lot about copyright.
now the convention of physical item property is getting re-evaluated, for 2 reasons: first, the rules are changing in the information world - so we re-look at the rules for everythign else. and, more importantly, the most interesting physical things are bundled with information to make them work. Since the rules are different in the two worlds - people are confused.
the long term end for humanity will be to scrap the idea of property as we have it now entirely. no one gets exclusive rights to anything. not having a governement own everything (socialism) - but the elimination of the idea of property altogether. by definition, there is enough, and people will be taught and required to conserve. everyone's resource usage will be tracked - and if they do not conserve, they will be ostracized by the all-knowing social nets that "out" them for their bad behavior.
Unfortunately, the diversity of human psychology is not adequately represented in these models. Most all of the predictive models for human behavior use a single (possibly variable) model for a person, though there are several distinct archetypes for human behavior.
Microsoft has another, major business unit selling computers to play games.
With thes, they have little reason to make vista (or XP, for that matter) a great gaming platform. They want people playing their games on consoles, and their DRM'd music and DRM'd office applications on thier PC. When you look at gaming this way, vista makes a lot more sense.
which kernel scheduler is pretty low on the list of factors affecting what the Linux desktop experience is all about...
frankly, really high quality experiences take organizational planning and leveraging the expereince of huge groups in way that the "bazzaar" model of software developemnt in open source does not do well. Would someone please just build a mutual benefit corporation for open source users and maintainers? Let's start paying for project managers and the other experienced professionals required to make a "desktop experience" and you will see Linux take over.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is a very similar comment. The very same point applied... and many people keep missing the point:
1- There are two group entities involved in both cases: a minority who controls a situation (group A), and a larger group of not-in-control people (group B).
2- The belief of an artificial need for both groups was created/sold
3- A technology "solution" was applied, again for both groups to use
4- In both cases, group B has almost no say in the matter, yet it affects them much more than group A. Group A typically creates and implements the solution, and "encourages/forces" group B to use it.
In both cases, the solution creates as many or more problems for group B as they had in the past. The solution is primarily oriented toward solving the fake "problem" for group B but in fact, what it does is increase the control Group A has over Group B. It makes the administration task for A easier and cheaper, while unequivocally diminishing the freedom for individuals in group B.
Given all that -- how do you conclude my comment was "spam"? I'm not selling anything here. This problem happens ALL THE TIME, and people don't see it.
In these two cases, the technology really only helps the diminishing minority - the minority who controls the situation have an easier time doing their job. It is sold do the majority crowd to solve a fake problem - one created mostly because the minority group is not really doing their job very well.
You, mr passive AC are part of the problem here. You might consider carefully this quote by novelist George Bernanos...it goes like this:
"I have thought for a long time now that if, some day, the increasing efficiency for the technique of destruction finally causes our species to disappear from the earth, it will not be cruelty that will be responsible for our extinction and still less, of course, the indignation that cruelty awakens and the reprisals and vengeance that it brings upon itself...but the docility, the lack of responsibility of the modern man, his base subservient acceptance of every common decree. The horrors that we have seen, the still greater horrors we shall presently see, are not signs that the rebels, the insubordinate, untamable men are increasing in number throughout the world, but rather that there is a constant increase in the number of obedient, docile men."
Arguably, the embryo is a person...
No. An embryo is an embryo, not a person.
A seed is a seed, not a tree.
Or a better analogy is: Flour and eggs are flour and eggs, not a cake.
An embryo would NOT become a human on its own, and this is why we do not treat it as a human. On its own, an embryo stops growing and developing, almost immediately.
An embryo cannot communicate at all, thus it cannot consent. Trees communicate and react more than embryos do, and there is no moral problem keeping and controlling trees as property.
Asserting 21 days for the start of life is absurd and slanted to support your religious point of view. You have called an anonymous "expert" to justify your position. Please list for me the volitional actions a 21-day old ball of human cells takes that are indicative of life. (I think that there are none.) In return, I'll list all the things that living things commonly do that a 21-day old ball of cells cannot.
Raising the question of voluntary action (and thus consent) makes no sense if the item in question cannot take any volitional action.
and the people will want the controls placed on them.
because it seemed easier
because it seemed faster
because it seemed safer
because I was afraid
because I thought I had to
because it was more expensive if I didn't let them do it
becuase it wasn't worth fighting any more for freedom
because if I refused, the terrorists would win
because everyone else was doing it
a system like this- services for kids in school seems simple, seems good - but it is a wolf in sheeps clothing. These students are being taught to use a system that is ultimately not in their own interests.
But in the end it won't matter how they get you to give up your humanity and your freedom, you will not be able to get it back once you are chipped, tracked, and recorded. Other people will "manage" your finances, your access rights, and your permissions -- all electronically and under one central system. It will make 1984 look appealing: at least they could hide from the telescreen in some corners of their world. The idea of dissent will fade from the collective understanding.
If you have not seen it yet, the Zeitgeist movie http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ covers this pretty well. Like sheep herded in the yard, dumb people who just can't seem to stop the TV long enough to figure out that centralized control of their life makes them no longer free.
in California, when you get a license to drive on public roads, you "pre-agree" to several things, like being searched and submitting to intoxication tests. it is a pre-requisite of getting a license to drive on the roads.
You need to know the name Dudley Hiibel, see http://www.papersplease.org/
About 5 years ago, this man would have been in the right. Today, sadly, with the traitors running our country and the evisceration of our Constitutional right, this man will probably be in the wrong.
I have a serious person problem with the tactics to these stores - for me it is Costco and Frys. I chose not to remain a Costco member, because their "membership agreement" states I pre-authorize them and agree to be searched on exiting te premises. The member agreement says it in nice way - "cooperate with store policies", but it is there. My confrontation ended with me walking away not searched.
Frys is different - a CA electronics store (ie not a member-based club) with huge selection, dumb help, and mid- to high- prices. If you need it right now, you can usually get it at Frys. They search you on exit too. I brought this up with a lawyer friend and a law student studying transaction law. My understanding was that at the register, the transaction is over - with receipt in hand. Further requests to open your bags are unequivocally a search and directly against the 4th Amendment, to the extent we still have one.
They problem here basically is profit margins. It is really difficult (expensive) to keep people from stealing in these big mega stores. mega stores are efficient - lots of products, few employees. Camera systems, radio tags, electronic means can all be avoided - and losses are difficult to deal with. The easy solution for these stores is to induce fear in their customers that they will be searched when they exit. It is much cheaper for the store to keep two people at the door than any other method, but it is a terrible precedent for freedom, and for being treated like a criminal when you're not.
don't have sex. It's not hard.
I call 'Bullshit'
And thus in one line he perpetuates the "Religious" attitude that our bodies and our desires are bad. In reality-land, sex is good, it is healthy, and we would all be better off be teaching everyone how to have more safe, more healthy sex with each other. Teaching people to be open, honest and get their needs met. People would be healthier and happier and without as much conflict.
Religious organizations artificially create an absurd conflict and make people feel GUILTY for wanting sex and following their natural instincts. At the same time, these same organizations offer the SOLUTION for their false, induced and irrational guilt: prayer and devotion, and giving money to the church!
And people fall for it!
In my opinion, there is NO defense for the position taken by major organized religions.
All evil stems initially from and is, at its core, fueled essentially by denial.
All the other factors and causes of evil acts: isolation, anger, retribution, and many others can be tracked back to people who deny reality, to people who live and believe the myths and stories, and use that denial to fuel acts of evil.
The Pope, and more broadly the Christians, purport the biggest myth of them all: that a all-knowing, all-power man in sky is always watching you, and he is vengeful and will send you to burn in Hell if you're bad, but he loves you.
By Myth, I mean a story that is widely believed, but not factual. Broad dissemination of non-factual religious myths allows and supports a society with many other myths and many lies - all popular and all broadly believed. Most people to live in a state of denial about their lives, and a small number, in extreme denial commit evil acts.
Strangely, the all-knowing, all-power creator of the universe needs a lot of donations of money from the mortals. What a gig.
I'm no fan of big businesses. Google is better than most. I'll take tax-evading, corrupt businesses over the Christians any day of the week. At least the businesses are not trying to guilt and manipulate people into parting with their money; they are doing the same corrupt actions as the governments taking the taxes.
this quote blows my mind: it provides more than twice the general-computation performance of Deep Blue
P R/
http://www.calvin.edu/~adams/research/microwulf/P
talk about a great example of how fast computers are changing the world! 10 years later, and 2 academics can hobble together a $2500 that has twice the performance of the IBM flagship, technology showcasing supercomputer.
and the people will want the controls placed on them.
because it seemed easier
because it seemed faster
because it seemed safer
because I was afraid
because I thought I had to
because it was more expensive if I didn't let them do it
becuase it wasn't worth fighting any more for freedom
because if I refused, the terrorists would win
because everyone else was doing it
and in the end it won't matter how they get you to give up your humanity and your freedom, you will not be able to get it back once you are chipped, tracked, and recorded. Other people will "manage" your finances, your access rights, and your permissions -- all electronically and under one central system. It will make 1984 look appealing: at least they could hide from the telescreen in some corners of their world. The idea of dissent will fade from the collective understanding.
If you have not seen it yet, the Zeitgeist movie http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ covers this pretty well. Like sheep herded in the yard, dumb people who just can't seem to stop the TV long enough to figure out that centralized control of their life makes them no longer free.
Instead of "should ..." I think the word that fits best is "traitor".
I have no problem with this system. I think it is GREAT that those charged to protect our interests (our government) has the ability to catch criminals efficiently. What I DO have a problem with is the lack of an independent judiciary to oversee the use of this power, and the absurd lack of transparency with its existence and use. Without these, this is simply another tool for enabling tyranny.
With the end of the cold war, I was hopeful that the ideological conflict between the west and the rest of the world was over. It looked like China was opening up.
It appears, with stories like this and many others, not to be the case. China is obviously acting in ways that are not good for people - as defined by Western standards of freedom. Unlike Russia, they do not appear to have the financial decay leading to an eventual collapse.
I've heard people argue that no one will go to war with China - the stakes are too high. Frankly, I'd rather see a massive 3rd world war than have the world societies slip silently into a death-like state like that the of Chinese government oppression.
Got oppression?
strangely, the way I see the law, the judge is right on this. just because it is volatile, does not mean it is any less incriminating.
the problem here is(are) the law(s), not the judge's interpretation.
copyright is completely out of control, and *NO* reasonable discussion on any issue regarding rights for copyright holders has merit (IMHO) until the copyright terms are fixed - meaning, significantly reduced. I don't advocate copyright elimination - it is valid and useful thing to have - just that the tampering with the law by these big companies has given them exactly the opposite that they expected - they have people who don't take it seriously because it is so far skewed against the public interest.
On a long enough time scale, everything balances.
welcome to the real world: entities with weapons who take things from each other. your alternatives are sparse.
I'd be fascinated to chat/im with you on this.
The current state of affairs has as much or more wealth disparity (depending on how you measure it) as any time in human history. It's just that now the ones at the very top of the heap are legal entities (trusts, funds, companies) but the control of those very top entities is still only about 10K people of the 6B on the planet.
Your observations are correct - but to counter, no one is an island, especially the rich and powerful. Take away the people who wash the car, cook their food, guard their door - and what power would they have? What good is all their money when no one uses money any more? No, in a world without property - reputation is king and it leads to resources. Getting there would feel like a step backwards at first - many of the "rich and powerful" don't want to lose what they have. But really, there are lots more people in the other camp, and you just can't make enough guns and troops to suppress the whole population of the world.
email me: jmd21211@woodyland.org
It is stories like this that keep me as a vocal and vehement opponent to Microsoft. In my view, this business and its practices are examples for all that is wrong with software today.
property is a convention. we all agree there is some mapping between resources and people (entities) that "own" them. well, most of us agree, except the thieves. in the old way, resources were all physical things, mostly. people traded items for money, and the item went from one owner to another.
increasingly, many companies have found that the common understanding of property does not work very well any more. informaion is more easily copied than transferred - and the recipient has a lesser right usually to use the information purchased than the original owner. hence the world is fighting a lot about copyright.
now the convention of physical item property is getting re-evaluated, for 2 reasons: first, the rules are changing in the information world - so we re-look at the rules for everythign else. and, more importantly, the most interesting physical things are bundled with information to make them work. Since the rules are different in the two worlds - people are confused.
the long term end for humanity will be to scrap the idea of property as we have it now entirely. no one gets exclusive rights to anything. not having a governement own everything (socialism) - but the elimination of the idea of property altogether. by definition, there is enough, and people will be taught and required to conserve. everyone's resource usage will be tracked - and if they do not conserve, they will be ostracized by the all-knowing social nets that "out" them for their bad behavior.
MS wants people playing games on consoles
This coment was supposed to be on th AT&T batery exlosion article. Not funy here. :(
See, the dam batteries srew up everyting!
Wel that would explin why I keep dopping packets and my cll phone has been beepng that my sevrs can't png each oter. Monopolies. *sigh*
... Reminds me more of Asimov's psychohistory.
Unfortunately, the diversity of human psychology is not adequately represented in these models. Most all of the predictive models for human behavior use a single (possibly variable) model for a person, though there are several distinct archetypes for human behavior.
see
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt
Microsoft has another, major business unit selling computers to play games.
With thes, they have little reason to make vista (or XP, for that matter) a great gaming platform. They want people playing their games on consoles, and their DRM'd music and DRM'd office applications on thier PC. When you look at gaming this way, vista makes a lot more sense.
which kernel scheduler is pretty low on the list of factors affecting what the Linux desktop experience is all about...
frankly, really high quality experiences take organizational planning and leveraging the expereince of huge groups in way that the "bazzaar" model of software developemnt in open source does not do well. Would someone please just build a mutual benefit corporation for open source users and maintainers? Let's start paying for project managers and the other experienced professionals required to make a "desktop experience" and you will see Linux take over.
"huh, what?" "elecronics in brains.... hmmmm" (prys eyes away from TV)
... the typical American response
"Does it think for me?"
"no."
Eyes revert to TV showing cars with hard drives.