Re:Iain M Banks - famous for being famous?
on
Look to Windward
·
· Score: 4
Consider Phlebas did make a lot of references to Ringworld, and intentionally so. The scene where dispassionate Minds and unconcerned citizens watch the Vavatch Orbital being destroyed is a sort of 'farewell to all that' as Banks says a fond goodbye to the Ringworld style and ushers in the new 'new wave'. And Consider Phlebas addresses traditional SF fare, and well, too, such as the search for identity, alienation, redundancy of biological beings etc
Consider how different Banks' fictional world is. He was, AFAIK, the first SF writer to disassociate his future civilisation from the planetary-centred Civs. that preceded him. The Culture exists entirely in space, it has no central authority, no real territorial claims. Also, human beings are reduced to the status of fleas on a dog - they are not necessary. And the concept of this civilisation being so jaded and purposeless, now that it has solved all of it's physical problems, that it needs to make it it's mission to 'help' lesser civilsations is fantastic. This seems to me to be a reference to the USA & the West today - we are in a similar situation;) . In fact, that book has so many complexities I reread it even now, and never fail to notice something new.
But by far his greatest creation, IMO, are the Minds themselves. Most other Computer Intelligences in SF come across as humans with funny voices, but the Minds are a truly brilliant creation. It's very difficult to write of such beings convincingly, and make the reader believe they transcend humanity, but Banks pulls it off.
I actually bought this and read it when it came out here in the UK ~2 months ago. I don't want to say too much about it, because I appreciate it could spoil things for others, but it seemed to me that the entire book was all about fatalism. You just knew while reading it that the main character was doomed from the very start; everything thereafter is inevitable.
Anyway, I love Banks stuff. He is my favourite SF writer. He is not really a 'hard' SF writer, I think he concentrates on the society rather than the technology - hence 'the Culture', and this is what makes him so interesting. Indeed one of the attributes of the Culture is that technology no longer advances from the perspective of the average citizen. Once you are capable of manufacturing anything, anywhere, and effectively for free what more can you do that will affect the average human?
Also, his work is very refreshing when compared to that of most other SF writers, as it regards communism as inevitable, something I would agree with, in the long term. The only other writer I can think of writes about this is Ken MacLeod, his fellow Scot. I think Americans especially, who dominate the field, tend to write about future Megacorporations and the like. Is this because they really think this or because they are scared of losing sales - I mean Americans (rightly) have been totally opposed to communism for decades, so possibly their SF writers are scared of being branded commies?
This is an absolutely absurd fantasy that reminds me of Soviet propaganda about how the Soviet Union had been a workers state. KissTheBlade's beloved multinationals are, in fact, big bureaucracies, whether he likes to admit that or not.
In a sense, they are beurocracies. But the big difference between them and government beurocracies is that multinationals are scared, and only exist for a short time. They are scared of failure, of falling stock prices and losing money. They must perform to survive. A recent study by the UN (I don't have a reference, sorry) showed that the life expectancy of a multinational is about 40 years. Look at the multinationals that everyone goes on about now. Look at the ones 20,40, 60 or 100 years ago - they are different in every case. This is quite different from government beurocracies, which need fear nothing and are effectively immortal. Furthermore, multinationals are highly transparent. Every detail of what they do, where they do it, why they do it and the reason they do it is openly available for consumption by shareholders and the general public.And don't forget that these companies are also highly law abiding - it's within their interest to stay within the law, indeed it would be suicidal for them to deviate from it.You state that I have an absurd fantasy, and don't give any evidence or arguments as to why this should be the case
Furthermore, the WTO, which KissTheBlade seems to love, is itself a government bureaucracy.
Yes, it is a government beurocracy. It is also a very small one. It's remit is to felicitate free trade between as many countries as possible. Why is this bad? Why is this small organisation the target of so much ire?
This is an absolutely absurd fantasy. Stock is essentially adult Pokemon cards, and most stockholders don't get into detailed policy decisions of the companies they hold stock in. Furthermore, the largest chunks of stock are owned by various institutional investors, which makes KissTheBlade's workers-state fantasy look even more absurd.
Thats right, small investors rarely get into detailed policy decisions of the companies they hold stock in. They pay institutional investors to do it for them, and expect results. If they don't get them, they change to another fund management group. Guess what? 70% of Americans own shares. The same is true of most western nations. Th great majority of almost any large company is ultimately owned by small investors.And these investors do make decisions about what companies thay invest in. For example, so-called 'ethical investment' is now greatly feared in Wall Street and other financial centres. Remember the GM food companies share price crash? This was caused by ethical investment. Another example is the British based multinational Thompsons(I think thats what it's called), which owns Smith&Wessons the Gun manufacturer and is forcing it to make it's guns have safety devices etc, much to the chagrin of the NRA. Why is it doing this? Because it's running scared of the ethical investment funds. Because it's scared of getting sued, and -hey - it's a law abiding company.
Anyway, to wrap up, multinational are owned and circumscribed by the common man, and while some aspects of their behaviour can be unsettling, they are not Evil. I would argue that they are a great asset to us.
(I'm always amused when I see multinational protestors using mobile phones & the internet to organise, and see them on TV with their cheap, mass produced clothes. Hypocrites)
Maybe it was an inside job...sponsered by some Microsoft 'deep throat'. Maybe the code that has been reported stolen isn't really microsoft source code. Maybe they have done it deliberately so they can sue the pants off the FSF six months down the line. Maybe it's a new variant on 'embrace, extend, extinguish', but this time without the awfully nice embrace part. Maybe I'm paranoid.
An individuals rights are different from those of a company, IMO.Besides, of course Microsoft and anyone else has the right to protect their property. It just seems to me to be about freedom of choice - I hate not having the option in any field, whether that be using free software or maintaining my privacy.
The concept of property is fundamental to any society, and I don't agree with the 'property is theft' idea, but when they can unfairly use this to their advantage, they should,and are, slapped down. When companies use their power to reduce freedom of choice, that is something to be resisted, for it is negative competition. Freedom of choice seems to me to be what the free software movement is all about.
In many ways, modern multinationals are excellent institutions.They are highly transparent,for example, especially when compared to the government buerocracies that the WTO protestors and the like adore so. The fact is that these companies are owned by Mr&Mrs Average, and the shareholders put an incredible amount of pressure on them to perform and demand information on their performance & intentions. They are the ones controlling the multinationals.
Anyway, getting a bit OT&OTT there, so to get back on-topic, I'll say that ultimately, Microsoft is free to do whatever the hell it wants with it's property and information, as long as it does not try and reduce my or anybody elses freedom to choose, whether it be software or my privacy.
Absolutely - Spyro the Dragon is the best damn game ever. I became obsessed with it and damn well completed the entire thing (including getting all the crystals).Thing is, if they released it for the P2 I'd probably get it just for that game. I hate addiction.Do you know any good rehab groups?
I hate being a tool of the multinationals.If only I could think for myself.
I'd disagree with this. You see, Mir is beneficial to the Russian people - it improves moralle.
As I understand it, lots of people in Russia are rather wistful for the old communist days, when everyone feared Russia and it was a global power. They are depressed and unconvinced by the virtues of capitalism.Therefore, anything that can help them hold their heads up high is good for Russia. Hell, Mir might even contribute to keeping the communists at bay just now - when your army hasn't been payed for 6 months and your fighting a pointless demoralising war (Chechnia) you've always got to be worried about revolution. So, for this reason, Mir may actually serve a useful purpose, in that it may help Joseph Bloggsov stay proud of 'Mother Russia'.Never underestimate the power of symbols.
Re:At least we don't have to worry about splashdow
on
Mir Lives
·
· Score: 1
just about everyone who's gone into space has been a 'geek' of some sort.
Thats funny, I always had the impression that they were all 'jocks' - eg ex-air force, gung-ho all-American heroes. Am I completely wrong? Very probably.
Re:What percentage of people will this help?
on
End To Blindness?
·
· Score: 2
I wonder what percentage of blindness it would actually 'cure'?
As I understand it, not much. I saw something very similar to this a few months ago, but the new retina consisted of about 6 pixels, which were wired directly into the optic nerve. They were triggered when the wearer was close to something, or when confronted by a bright object.
Now, although the resolution isn't great, it's a hell of a lot better than nothing - the patient they tested it on could distinguish some objects, and tell when he was close to walls and stuff.
The big difference though, was that the retina was external, mounted on his forehead, I think, but it still wired into his optic nerve, which was the important advance.
That was really fascinating, I had no idea people are boosting C64's to such an incredible degree. I'd love a monster such as you describe, but preferably a boosted Spectrum 48k;)
What is the maximum addressable memory of the old 6502 anyway? I know with the Z80 it was 16k, so if it was the same for the 6502 then to use 16M ram it would have to use a hell of a lot of pages, and coding would be a bitch. These old 8-bits were the best, as I understand it the Speccy scene is still vibrant in the Eastern Block, because they built lots of fascinating variants in the 80's and 90's, like the Hobbit in Romania, because they could not import due to the cold war (& expense).If I could get a boosted speccy with some Internet capability I'd probably use it loads, hell, I still spend time playing Jet Set Willy(most fun when emulated and run at Hyperspeed).
One thing that's interesting is that the 8-bits catapulted loads of people into the computing industry. In the UK during the 80's, the consoles never really took off, it was all a strange primordial soup of 8-bits(Speccy, C64, Amstrad CPC & BBC), & Britain for a short time had the highest rate of computer ownership in the world. This led to loads of kids learning computer coding, and is reckoned to be the cause of Britain having 1/3 of the world computer games market, quite an achievement for such a small country!
Ahh..Life was good then... I yearn for those days when life was simple, computers were simple & programming was simple(no damned weird OOP japanese crap back then, & the GOTO & POKE ruled the Earth;).
What would happen if Napster decided to move somewhere more friendly, like the Principality of Sealand? I mean, I thought the whole point of the internet was that there are no borders to it. To avoid blame, surely they could just move to a 'rogue'state?
I think if it ever came to pass the Americans would be very aware of this. The solution would be to have Britain join as 5 states: Northern England, Southern England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland.
What would be good, IMO, would be to pull out of the EU (but remain in EFTA) and join Nafta. The treaty of Rome states that we are not allowed to make any trading agreements with countries outside the EU, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, I think, so this would be necessary. Still, damn the undemocratic, protectionist, backward EU! We should become a globalist looking power.
It will be intersing to see just what effects the Human Rights Act is going to have on UK law. It seems to me that much of British Legislation is built on the assumption that the government is fundamentally composed of good people (stout fellows). This is the tradition that the RIP act comes from - 'okay, it does infringe on peoples rights, but we're British, Dammit! We don't abuse peoples rights by nature' - this seems to be the general attitude.
However, the Human Rights Act comes from an entirely different tradition, that of continental Europe, where they don't trust the government, and with good reason, given their history. This means that the Human Rights act will probably clash will all sorts of surprising parts of British Law, and I don't think this will be a good thing
An example might be in Scotland, where traffic speed cameras may have to be removed thanks to the Human Rights Act.(the idea is that they can identify the speeding car, but not the driver, so it's stupid to prosecute the driver of a car caught speeding)
I'm not saying that I agree with the RIP bill, because it seems to abuse the most fundamental of British Traditions, that of innocence until proven guilty, but I am wary of the different directions that British Law is being pulled at the moment, on the one hand by Jack Straw and his blatantly idiotic laws (bye bye trial by jury), and on the other by the alien edicts and ethics of European law.
I think it's about time we ignored all these foreign infringments, and realised that British Law should be dealt with within it's own traditions as it always has.
That may be true, the only problem is: What is a stronger motivation for excellence? Prestige or greed? I would argue the latter. &, don't forget that commercial companies are lean and mean from the top down. They tend to do things faster and cheaper than their commercial equivalents.
I once heard a story about the command economy of the old Soviet Union, where a shoe factory was ordered by beurocrats above to produce a shoe quota of ten thousand shoes. So the manager thought, "hmmm, what uses the least leather? Childrens shoes. I'll make them all the same type, to save costs, left footed only. I'll order enought leather for 10000 men, and *if* I get it, I'll sell the surpluss on the blackmarket."
This is why command economies are awful. What you need is a mixture - government to provide overall direction, and commercial companies to get the work done quickly and efficiently.
Well, fellow freeserve user (well done for getting online btw), I didn't mean all of our crap. Just the extraterrestrial stuff. Although I do think our environment is more robust than people may believe, I do agree it is unwise to take the risk. But when it comes to space junk, which is mostly inert and there can only be a few thousand(?) tons of it anyway, I think we can make an exception. Sorry if I was not clearer.
The difference is that the capitalist countries have a large infastructure of commercial companies to help out with the space program, like Lockheed, Boeing, BAe etc.
Hmm... how much longer can we go on dumping our junk in the oceans without seriously screwing up our ecosystems...
Umm, effectively forever. The ocean is very large, and the amount of space junk in our atmosphere is small, comparitively. Besides, people are complaining all the time about junk in space, so you have two options:
1)Junk in space
2)Junk in oceans
I'd rather go with option 2, 1 would hinder our development. As to blasting it into geosynch, there is only a limited amount of space in geosynch orbit as it is for commercial satellites. In fact the Chinese and Sky corporation have been squabbling about a slot up there for ages.
And, it would be phenomanally expensive to blast Mir up to a 36000km altitude, it's only at a few hundred at the moment. It's much cheaper, safer and easier to just dump it in the ocean, all told.
It would seem to me that strictly defined requirements are more important for commercial software than for free software.
However, I think that this is an area where free software has an advantage. As the typical free software project starts off as a twinkle in it's authors eye, and can be written as he sees fit, this means the software is not stifled by an inflexible morass of definitions. Also, it is an aid to creativity - the author(s) are free to think and write as they wish, at least at the projects inception, which is probably the most important point of all.
However, where the commercial model wins is with an overall sense of direction. Sure, it may not be as adaptable or nimble as the free software development process, but it is like a juggernaut - nothing will stop it from reaching it's destination, not quality or sense or changed cicumstances. I am not saying that free software development does not have a direction, though. But I consider it's sense of direction to be, if you like, an emergent property, not necessarily explicitly stated. Of course, this is slightly parodic, but I feel it has a grain of truth somewhere;)
Depends. Newbie user who doesn't like compiling and find free software intimidating - yes. Stick-in-the-mud companies that want 'support' - yes. Linux is entering the mainstream now, so don't expect these new users to make the rational choice.
oops. My mistake. I actually did'nt mean to suggest that the samurai were still around in, say , 1940, or that Japan was primarily an agricultural economy at this time. Merely that the militaristic element was the most influential power structure prior to '45, as opposed to the economic or beurocratic.I know that Japanese history is a lot more complex than I've made out, I have so grossly simplified it that there are bound to be disagreements.
As to the manga, I bow to your superior knowledge. But then, the post immediately prior to mine does seem to bear me out;)
This is my opinion (when it comes to manga anyway, I'm not so sure about anime)
Japan is a very rigorous, top-down society. This is because up until about 100-120 years ago, it had an essentially feudal society, based on the cultivation of rice, probably the most labour intensive form of agriculture in the world. This meant it's society had to rigorously the peasants to an incredible degree, much more so than was necessary in feudal Europe, for example. Plus, in feudal Japan you had many thousands of Samurai roaming the land, each with his own 'license to kill'. Japanese manners and lifestyle are based on the absolute need to avoid conflict of any kind, and they are very succesful in doing this.
120 years ago, this autocratic and ordered society was uniquely suited to the needs of an Industrial Economy. It wasn't until the Macarthur period after WWII that Japan experienced a sort of loosening from these age old constraints, but soon the old power structures regained their influence, at the behest of Washington and to the chagrin of Macarthur, and this brief summer was over. Fortunately, the military did not regain it's old power, but the beurocracy and the Keiretsu (Large beurocratic commercial super-companies) did, and the democratic parliament trailed a poor third.
Now, the Samurai was replaced by the 'Salaryman', and the Japanese had a new master to replace the paddy fields; commerce. This means that today, Japanese culture is as repressed and conformist as it has always been. But every culture needs some pressure outlets - what are the outlets of the Japanese? Well, one of them is Manga. Manga is extremely popular in Japan, and not just among the younger, 'cool' constituency as it is elsewhere. Salarymen commuting for two hours on the bullet train read it. Middle aged executives read it. It is popular because it allows Japanese to think and fantasise about a world of dark conflict and sexual explicitness, that they would not otherwise be able to. Perhaps it is popular among 'geeks' for similar reasons. Geeks are not exactly famed for their emotional literacy and openness, so perhaps they use it as an outlet as well.
On the other hand, perhaps they just think it looks k001:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Consider how different Banks' fictional world is. He was, AFAIK, the first SF writer to disassociate his future civilisation from the planetary-centred Civs. that preceded him. The Culture exists entirely in space, it has no central authority, no real territorial claims. Also, human beings are reduced to the status of fleas on a dog - they are not necessary. And the concept of this civilisation being so jaded and purposeless, now that it has solved all of it's physical problems, that it needs to make it it's mission to 'help' lesser civilsations is fantastic. This seems to me to be a reference to the USA & the West today - we are in a similar situation ;) . In fact, that book has so many complexities I reread it even now, and never fail to notice something new.
But by far his greatest creation, IMO, are the Minds themselves. Most other Computer Intelligences in SF come across as humans with funny voices, but the Minds are a truly brilliant creation. It's very difficult to write of such beings convincingly, and make the reader believe they transcend humanity, but Banks pulls it off.
Anyway, I love Banks stuff. He is my favourite SF writer. He is not really a 'hard' SF writer, I think he concentrates on the society rather than the technology - hence 'the Culture', and this is what makes him so interesting. Indeed one of the attributes of the Culture is that technology no longer advances from the perspective of the average citizen. Once you are capable of manufacturing anything, anywhere, and effectively for free what more can you do that will affect the average human?
Also, his work is very refreshing when compared to that of most other SF writers, as it regards communism as inevitable, something I would agree with, in the long term. The only other writer I can think of writes about this is Ken MacLeod, his fellow Scot. I think Americans especially, who dominate the field, tend to write about future Megacorporations and the like. Is this because they really think this or because they are scared of losing sales - I mean Americans (rightly) have been totally opposed to communism for decades, so possibly their SF writers are scared of being branded commies?
Post it on /. of course! It would have very interesting repercussions.
In a sense, they are beurocracies. But the big difference between them and government beurocracies is that multinationals are scared, and only exist for a short time. They are scared of failure, of falling stock prices and losing money. They must perform to survive. A recent study by the UN (I don't have a reference, sorry) showed that the life expectancy of a multinational is about 40 years. Look at the multinationals that everyone goes on about now. Look at the ones 20,40, 60 or 100 years ago - they are different in every case. This is quite different from government beurocracies, which need fear nothing and are effectively immortal. Furthermore, multinationals are highly transparent. Every detail of what they do, where they do it, why they do it and the reason they do it is openly available for consumption by shareholders and the general public.And don't forget that these companies are also highly law abiding - it's within their interest to stay within the law, indeed it would be suicidal for them to deviate from it.You state that I have an absurd fantasy, and don't give any evidence or arguments as to why this should be the case
Furthermore, the WTO, which KissTheBlade seems to love, is itself a government bureaucracy.
Yes, it is a government beurocracy. It is also a very small one. It's remit is to felicitate free trade between as many countries as possible. Why is this bad? Why is this small organisation the target of so much ire?
This is an absolutely absurd fantasy. Stock is essentially adult Pokemon cards, and most stockholders don't get into detailed policy decisions of the companies they hold stock in. Furthermore, the largest chunks of stock are owned by various institutional investors, which makes KissTheBlade's workers-state fantasy look even more absurd.
Thats right, small investors rarely get into detailed policy decisions of the companies they hold stock in. They pay institutional investors to do it for them, and expect results. If they don't get them, they change to another fund management group. Guess what? 70% of Americans own shares. The same is true of most western nations. Th great majority of almost any large company is ultimately owned by small investors.And these investors do make decisions about what companies thay invest in. For example, so-called 'ethical investment' is now greatly feared in Wall Street and other financial centres. Remember the GM food companies share price crash? This was caused by ethical investment. Another example is the British based multinational Thompsons(I think thats what it's called), which owns Smith&Wessons the Gun manufacturer and is forcing it to make it's guns have safety devices etc, much to the chagrin of the NRA. Why is it doing this? Because it's running scared of the ethical investment funds. Because it's scared of getting sued, and -hey - it's a law abiding company.
Anyway, to wrap up, multinational are owned and circumscribed by the common man, and while some aspects of their behaviour can be unsettling, they are not Evil. I would argue that they are a great asset to us.
(I'm always amused when I see multinational protestors using mobile phones & the internet to organise, and see them on TV with their cheap, mass produced clothes. Hypocrites)
Maybe it was an inside job...sponsered by some Microsoft 'deep throat'. Maybe the code that has been reported stolen isn't really microsoft source code. Maybe they have done it deliberately so they can sue the pants off the FSF six months down the line. Maybe it's a new variant on 'embrace, extend, extinguish', but this time without the awfully nice embrace part. Maybe I'm paranoid.
The concept of property is fundamental to any society, and I don't agree with the 'property is theft' idea, but when they can unfairly use this to their advantage, they should ,and are, slapped down. When companies use their power to reduce freedom of choice, that is something to be resisted, for it is negative competition. Freedom of choice seems to me to be what the free software movement is all about.
In many ways, modern multinationals are excellent institutions.They are highly transparent,for example, especially when compared to the government buerocracies that the WTO protestors and the like adore so. The fact is that these companies are owned by Mr&Mrs Average, and the shareholders put an incredible amount of pressure on them to perform and demand information on their performance & intentions. They are the ones controlling the multinationals.
Anyway, getting a bit OT&OTT there, so to get back on-topic, I'll say that ultimately, Microsoft is free to do whatever the hell it wants with it's property and information, as long as it does not try and reduce my or anybody elses freedom to choose, whether it be software or my privacy.
I hate being a tool of the multinationals.If only I could think for myself.
As I understand it, lots of people in Russia are rather wistful for the old communist days, when everyone feared Russia and it was a global power. They are depressed and unconvinced by the virtues of capitalism.Therefore, anything that can help them hold their heads up high is good for Russia. Hell, Mir might even contribute to keeping the communists at bay just now - when your army hasn't been payed for 6 months and your fighting a pointless demoralising war (Chechnia) you've always got to be worried about revolution. So, for this reason, Mir may actually serve a useful purpose, in that it may help Joseph Bloggsov stay proud of 'Mother Russia'.Never underestimate the power of symbols.
Thats funny, I always had the impression that they were all 'jocks' - eg ex-air force, gung-ho all-American heroes. Am I completely wrong? Very probably.
As I understand it, not much. I saw something very similar to this a few months ago, but the new retina consisted of about 6 pixels, which were wired directly into the optic nerve. They were triggered when the wearer was close to something, or when confronted by a bright object.
Now, although the resolution isn't great, it's a hell of a lot better than nothing - the patient they tested it on could distinguish some objects, and tell when he was close to walls and stuff.
The big difference though, was that the retina was external, mounted on his forehead, I think, but it still wired into his optic nerve, which was the important advance.
What is the maximum addressable memory of the old 6502 anyway? I know with the Z80 it was 16k, so if it was the same for the 6502 then to use 16M ram it would have to use a hell of a lot of pages, and coding would be a bitch.
These old 8-bits were the best, as I understand it the Speccy scene is still vibrant in the Eastern Block, because they built lots of fascinating variants in the 80's and 90's, like the Hobbit in Romania, because they could not import due to the cold war (& expense).If I could get a boosted speccy with some Internet capability I'd probably use it loads, hell, I still spend time playing Jet Set Willy(most fun when emulated and run at Hyperspeed).
One thing that's interesting is that the 8-bits catapulted loads of people into the computing industry. In the UK during the 80's, the consoles never really took off, it was all a strange primordial soup of 8-bits(Speccy, C64, Amstrad CPC & BBC), & Britain for a short time had the highest rate of computer ownership in the world. This led to loads of kids learning computer coding, and is reckoned to be the cause of Britain having 1/3 of the world computer games market, quite an achievement for such a small country!
Ahh..Life was good then... I yearn for those days when life was simple, computers were simple & programming was simple(no damned weird OOP japanese crap back then, & the GOTO & POKE ruled the Earth;).
Anyway, I'm rambling now, so I'll stop.
What would be good, IMO, would be to pull out of the EU (but remain in EFTA) and join Nafta. The treaty of Rome states that we are not allowed to make any trading agreements with countries outside the EU, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, I think, so this would be necessary. Still, damn the undemocratic, protectionist, backward EU! We should become a globalist looking power.
However, the Human Rights Act comes from an entirely different tradition, that of continental Europe, where they don't trust the government, and with good reason, given their history. This means that the Human Rights act will probably clash will all sorts of surprising parts of British Law, and I don't think this will be a good thing
An example might be in Scotland, where traffic speed cameras may have to be removed thanks to the Human Rights Act.(the idea is that they can identify the speeding car, but not the driver, so it's stupid to prosecute the driver of a car caught speeding)
I'm not saying that I agree with the RIP bill, because it seems to abuse the most fundamental of British Traditions, that of innocence until proven guilty, but I am wary of the different directions that British Law is being pulled at the moment, on the one hand by Jack Straw and his blatantly idiotic laws (bye bye trial by jury), and on the other by the alien edicts and ethics of European law.
I think it's about time we ignored all these foreign infringments, and realised that British Law should be dealt with within it's own traditions as it always has.
I once heard a story about the command economy of the old Soviet Union, where a shoe factory was ordered by beurocrats above to produce a shoe quota of ten thousand shoes. So the manager thought, "hmmm, what uses the least leather? Childrens shoes. I'll make them all the same type, to save costs, left footed only. I'll order enought leather for 10000 men, and *if* I get it, I'll sell the surpluss on the blackmarket."
This is why command economies are awful. What you need is a mixture - government to provide overall direction, and commercial companies to get the work done quickly and efficiently.
Well, fellow freeserve user (well done for getting online btw), I didn't mean all of our crap. Just the extraterrestrial stuff. Although I do think our environment is more robust than people may believe, I do agree it is unwise to take the risk. But when it comes to space junk, which is mostly inert and there can only be a few thousand(?) tons of it anyway, I think we can make an exception. Sorry if I was not clearer.
The difference is that the capitalist countries have a large infastructure of commercial companies to help out with the space program, like Lockheed, Boeing, BAe etc.
Umm, effectively forever. The ocean is very large, and the amount of space junk in our atmosphere is small, comparitively. Besides, people are complaining all the time about junk in space, so you have two options:
1)Junk in space
2)Junk in oceans
I'd rather go with option 2, 1 would hinder our development. As to blasting it into geosynch, there is only a limited amount of space in geosynch orbit as it is for commercial satellites. In fact the Chinese and Sky corporation have been squabbling about a slot up there for ages.
And, it would be phenomanally expensive to blast Mir up to a 36000km altitude, it's only at a few hundred at the moment. It's much cheaper, safer and easier to just dump it in the ocean, all told.
However, I think that this is an area where free software has an advantage. As the typical free software project starts off as a twinkle in it's authors eye, and can be written as he sees fit, this means the software is not stifled by an inflexible morass of definitions. Also, it is an aid to creativity - the author(s) are free to think and write as they wish, at least at the projects inception, which is probably the most important point of all.
However, where the commercial model wins is with an overall sense of direction. Sure, it may not be as adaptable or nimble as the free software development process, but it is like a juggernaut - nothing will stop it from reaching it's destination, not quality or sense or changed cicumstances. I am not saying that free software development does not have a direction, though. But I consider it's sense of direction to be, if you like, an emergent property, not necessarily explicitly stated. Of course, this is slightly parodic, but I feel it has a grain of truth somewhere ;)
Why not? If it worked for Bill Gates, it'll work for me.
Whaddaya mean it's been done allready? :D
Depends. Newbie user who doesn't like compiling and find free software intimidating - yes. Stick-in-the-mud companies that want 'support' - yes. Linux is entering the mainstream now, so don't expect these new users to make the rational choice.
Consider beer. Your competitors brand is outselling you. Solution? Release 100 inferior brands of beer. You will take the market by sheer bandwidth.
As to the manga, I bow to your superior knowledge. But then, the post immediately prior to mine does seem to bear me out ;)
Japan is a very rigorous, top-down society. This is because up until about 100-120 years ago, it had an essentially feudal society, based on the cultivation of rice, probably the most labour intensive form of agriculture in the world. This meant it's society had to rigorously the peasants to an incredible degree, much more so than was necessary in feudal Europe, for example. Plus, in feudal Japan you had many thousands of Samurai roaming the land, each with his own 'license to kill'. Japanese manners and lifestyle are based on the absolute need to avoid conflict of any kind, and they are very succesful in doing this.
120 years ago, this autocratic and ordered society was uniquely suited to the needs of an Industrial Economy. It wasn't until the Macarthur period after WWII that Japan experienced a sort of loosening from these age old constraints, but soon the old power structures regained their influence, at the behest of Washington and to the chagrin of Macarthur, and this brief summer was over. Fortunately, the military did not regain it's old power, but the beurocracy and the Keiretsu (Large beurocratic commercial super-companies) did, and the democratic parliament trailed a poor third.
Now, the Samurai was replaced by the 'Salaryman', and the Japanese had a new master to replace the paddy fields; commerce. This means that today, Japanese culture is as repressed and conformist as it has always been. But every culture needs some pressure outlets - what are the outlets of the Japanese? Well, one of them is Manga. Manga is extremely popular in Japan, and not just among the younger, 'cool' constituency as it is elsewhere. Salarymen commuting for two hours on the bullet train read it. Middle aged executives read it. It is popular because it allows Japanese to think and fantasise about a world of dark conflict and sexual explicitness, that they would not otherwise be able to. Perhaps it is popular among 'geeks' for similar reasons. Geeks are not exactly famed for their emotional literacy and openness, so perhaps they use it as an outlet as well.
On the other hand, perhaps they just think it looks k001 :-)