Name one. Subdivisions of existing cultures don't count--find a society somewhere that considers incest "normal" that isn't just a self-absorbed backlash against traditional society.
I'm sorry, but I feel that your argument continues to be based upon instinct and conditioning rather than reason. Any cursory examination of the taboo of incest would reveal that its condemnation -- indeed, its very definition -- is applied differently across a number of cultures. Whilst it is true that incest of some form is generally prohibited in most major societies, the particular form varies to a great extent. And there are societies where incest has been either accepted or encouraged -- you should not let your revulsion for the idea lead you to blanket all such cases as "self-absorbed backlash against traditional society" -- that's a dangerous game, and is played by those who view *any* particular divergence from their accepted moral stance.
But they all include killing someone. The room to argue is if there are times when killing someone isn't murder, not if there are times when it is.
I don't understand your point. Capital punishment is commonly accepted in the United States -- a seemingly paradoxical notion given the avowed "Christian" stance of most of its leaders. I suppose you're suggesting that "murder is wrong, but killing people for socially acceptable reasons is okay"? You're on difficult ground.
I do not base my desire to eat animals on my religion. I have a much more basic drive than that: I am a human being, and humans are designed to get sustinence from meat. Animal fat tastes
You're able to live without meat. I doubt that you're commonly involved in war or faced with problems of survival. Another basic human instinct, since you seem to be alluding to those, is for procreation - and yet I dare say that it's not acceptable, by your moral code, to rape somebody. Why is that? The principle, after all, is the same.
It's not "animals vs. humans." I wouldn't eat my cats, nor my father-in-law's dog, nor a friend's horse. Each of these creatures provides
Oh, nonsense. The French and Italians eat horse regularly, for example. The true reason you wouldn't eat your cat or dog or horse has far less to do with any "tangible benefit" that they might confer than with social conditioning. You consider a cat to be "a pet", rather than a foodstuff. You consider the neatly packaged goods you buy at the grocery store to be "food", and so you eat those. It's mere abstraction, really - it's more convenient to think about animal foods in a different way than animal "companions".
And no, you haven't been at "eat or die time" (and, indeed, a balanced vegetarian diet is arguably healthier than a carnivorous one), so your arguments go rather out of the window; indeed, the growing number of vegetarians in the world reinforces the view that the "right" of eating meat is a sociological construct that, as its importance diminishes, becomes less valid in modern society.
As for the animals that I eat--cows, deer, fish, chickens, and pigs--none of them provide any benefit to me, whatsoever, except as a foodstuff / part of an ecosystem. (That's redundant, because, in the wild, all of the food animals get eaten as well.)
Fine - you're supporting my argument, though, that this comes down to draconian and, to use your earlier language, "hedonistic" living, rather than to inherent "good" or "evil". Ah, but you're a Christian - man is, of course, "better" than the animals, and science goes out of the window.
Science says nothing about morality. Only in the rather young and nebulous fields of sociology and pscyhology is the concept of people eating people even an item of debate. You can't use "doesn't eat meat" as a way to judge a creature "better." You might as well use "doesn't have sex" or "doesn't eat at all" to rank them--it makes about as much scientific sense.
I agree with you, but I believe I covered this in earlier postings -- as humans, we can only form our own individual moral standpoints. Nature doesn't care if we wipe the entire planet out but, as someone with eyes to view it and some kind of mechanism for feeling some kind of joy at that, I consider it important to keep the whole thing ticking over. I don't think there's inherent value in these things; what value there is is what we've come to make for ourselves.
ure we can--we do have it that way, in fact. And we will have it that way until science and religion sort out their mutual disagreements. (Which will take either the invention of a working practical time machine, or the direct intervention of God.)
My point is that whilst people seek to have it both ways, to do so involves a logical fallacy. I'm not personally content with glaring inconsistencies in my view of the world, and try to address them wherever possible (which is why I stopped eating meat, when I realised the irony of looking after cats etc. whilst devouring other animals).
We are moral creatures. But the very concept of "morality" is worthless if you don't use an objective measurement for "good" and "bad" morals
Your argument begs the question. You can't assert that "we are moral creatures" and then go on to say that "we need an objective measurement", because there *is* no objective measurement. Even if you subscribe to the notion that the Word of God is law, and provides us with such a measurement, that word is subject to interpretation and abuse. Now, it may be that you consider that law, clouded and obscure and contradictory as it is, to be a true standard. I can only ask that you consider the alternatives.
It might be time to take this to personal email, if you feel so inclined - and if you don't mind dealing with me at my email address, which is "kafka" AT "antichri" DOT "st"..;p
It's right to share scientiifc knowledge. It's right to protect the rights of people. It's wrong to murder.:)
According to whom? The answer: according to nothing but current social standards. In a society where incest is the social norm, incest is considered "right". The definition of "murder" varies according to who's writing the definition. Hell, the very idea of "rights of people" is inherently subjective. Which rights? Who gave you those rights? As an entity unto myself, don't I have the right to take the life of another human? No? Then why should I have the right to speak to another human?
Why can't a way of life be worthy? Even if there is no God, no afterlife, and no way off this mudball for our species, at least we can make it a better place in the short term by worthy actions.
My point was that notions of worth are dependent upon subjective values. It's considered "worthy" to protect other humans because we can readily understand that those humans are similar to ourselves, and because we wish to be protected ourselves. It's less commonly considered "unworthy" to kill animals because that link is less obvious, and because they 'taste good'. But what evidence is there to suggest that either is "more worthy" than any other? There are two options: either there's a higher power who determines "worth", in which case He has clearly been much understood across the centuries, or there is only opinion, dogma and tradition.
Let's not get into the application of morality to human-animal relationships, shall we? (I prefer a simpsons quote: "If that cow had the chance, he'd eat you too." Which is right; if the cow could digest me, he wouldn't think twice about eating me.)
Even if that is true, it is likely that the cow would be doing it thanks to an inability to better consider his actions. Your refusal to apply humanitarian concerns to animals is because you're socially programmed to believe that humans are 'better' than 'other animals' - an rather non-scientific attitude. Actually, I would argue that if we *are* 'better' than animals then it's precisely because we can make the decision *not* to eat meat.
You can't have it both ways: either we're morally aware creatures who should make moral decisions, or we're just animals and there's no morality.
(To address the seeming inconsistency in my own beliefs: as I said before, I don't believe that there's any absolute morality, but I do understand that I have certain traits -- my own "morality" -- and that I am happiest when acting in a way consistent with those inherent feelings.
You might wish to read Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian", then.
I find the notion of an objective "right or wrong" to be rather quaint, but by your own criteria neither Christianity nor religion in general have proven to be very "good".
I apologise if I implied that I think gratuitous self-satisfaction is a particularly worthy way of life (insomuch as any such way of life can be worthy). For my part, I try to deal with other creatures - all other creatures - in the way in which I would hope to be treated myself: since I enjoy life, I don't take life from others. Since I like to be fed, I believe others should be fed. That kind of hippy drivel.
Ah, so "acceptance" is equal to "moral"? I see. I'm inclined to believe that you're trolling; unfortunately, we clearly do live in a world in which people believe steadfastly in absolute 'right' and 'wrong', refuse to reconsider their notions, refuse to challenge their assumptions or to question what they're told.
I'm saddened by the suggestion that what's important is to live in a way that is accepted by other people. I'd prefer to live in a way that *I* believe to be "right", irrespective of what others might think (although, of course, I can't help but be influenced by the society I live in).
Sounds like fun - shame about the name
on
Economy of Errors
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I find it disappointing that a satirical publication should feel the need to identify itself so obviously as such. The Onion is the masterpiece that it is because it's so clever, so subtle, so 'could be true'. SatireWire may be all of these things, but the name 'gives it away' - by clearly saying "It's a joke! Funny!", the joke's impact is lessened.
I'm not trying to be picky; it's just something of a bete noir of mine. I use The Onion as a perfect example to fellow Englishmen who claim that America doesn't understand irony, that American humo[u]r isn't funny. The Onion -- as all satire -- succeeds because it doesn't doubt the capacity of its audience to understand the humour. On this issue, SatireWire loses many points.
What is the center's view on the publishing of material that might be considered "offensive" or "dangerous", and does the center make subjective judgements upon the importance of one piece of intellectual property over another on the basis of 'artistic worth', 'decency', etc.? With only limited resources available to promote the archiving of data, is there the risk that important fringe documents may be left by the wayside, or ignored due to political/social concerns?
It seems that Microsoft has been using the "Linux is only free if your time isn't worth anything" argument far too often without any real response from the OSS/Free software community. Certainly, we all understand the fallacy of the argument, but I think that this is an underappreciated attempt on marketing spin by Microsoft which isn't being properly addressed.
Yes, implementation always costs money. GNU/Linux is no different from any other operating system in this respect. But why is nobody in the media pointing out that *implementing and maintaining Microsoft software is similarly time consuming* and that, over any reasonable period of time, it's *at least as costly* as Linux? By allowing these constant references to "Linux being free like a puppy", and by not responding with incredulity, we're aiding Microsoft. It might seem obvious to you and me that the spin is silly, but journalists appear to be buying into it -- and so will potential users who are already frightened by the concept of arcane shells and incompatible office documents.
The true benefits of Linux need to be restated - as well as being 'free', it's also robust, powerful, usable. I'm concerned that these concessions by Microsoft are really just new forms of attack upon Linux - attacks that are potentially more damaging than the previous tactic of ignoring the operating system completely, since they play to the concerns of non-technical users (and management).
Thousands of happy Linux users can -- and must -- attest to the fact that Linux just works better for a large number of tasks. The ideas that it's more difficult to use well and involves more effort and money to deploy successfully are simply untrue, at least on the server market.
It's just Macrovision for broadcast, basically; the MPAA notes that "legislation would be required", and that's because without it manufacturers or third parties will quickly develop means of circumventing the protection. Of course, whatever happens, there *will* be the means of recording any broadcast stream -- these people need to recognise that, if it's human-recognisable, it's machine-recordable. All that's achieved by these kind of nonsensical restictions is a) increased costs for the manufacturers, which lead to b) increased costs for the consumer, and c) a less satisfactory user experience. But that media will continue to be recorded, nobody should have any doubt.
And besides, will anyone really stand for this? The idea of recordable media -- vcrs, in particular -- is very deeply ingrained, and most people probably consider it their "right" to record their television. And rightly so!
It's incredible to me that so many presumably intelligent people waste so much effort on these draconian measures. Corporate greed is to blame, of course - but, with a little thought, it seems to me that many of these people could do better by *not* alienating the populace, and by finding some other, better way of making their money such that everyone could be happy. The MPAA and their kind are scared of technology that they don't really understand, and they're losing their grip on the industry. Tough luck. Legislation shouldn't be put in place which will serve big business at the expense of the consumer. Rather, big business needs to learn to evolve to the consumer's wishes, or it needs to die.
I read the article. However, whilst I agree that Ford could have circumvented the redirection, this doesn't negate the potential issue that companies may potentially be at risk of having others redirect (transparently, even) to their sites in a similar fashion - these cases are *not* as clear cut as simply linking to a page, in my opinion. Is it entirely fair for the burden of responsibility to be placed upon the companies to be aware of everything that is "said using their voice", so to speak?
I'm not necessarily suggesting otherwise; I'm merely pointing out that the ethical arguments *aren't* as simple as they might otherwise seem. To extend (rather excessively) the analogy to human speech, what people seem to be saying is akin to "Well, I can disguise myself as you, put on silly or offensive clothes, and have people believe that I *am* you -- but that's okay because, well, you could stop me if you knew I was doing it".
Again, I think Ford might have been more.. delicate, in this situation -- I'd blame trigger-happy lawyers. But the point has already been made by somebody else that it's not as though 2600 *asked* Ford before setting up the redirection, either. Who's being inconsiderate of whom?
I'm afraid I'm going to post without having too great an understanding of the entire situation - nothing new to/., of course, but still.. at any rate, the site in question isn't too immediately informative as to what all of this is about, but as far as I can tell, Ford took 2600 to court for pointing www.fuckgeneralmotors.com to Ford's website.
Now, whilst I'm all for freedom of speech, isn't it perhaps understandable that Ford should have been upset, or concerned, by this? Whilst the link was presumably set up as a kind of compliment to Ford (at GM's expense), it's easy to see that Ford would be upset by such a move - the page might well, to the non-tech-savvy, look as though it had been set up *by* Ford themselves; hardly a professional image to betray.
In cases like this where it's not immediately clear *who* is doing the "speaking", isn't the concept of "freedom of speech" clouded? Wouldn't this stray into libel territory, where words are being essentially "put into the mouth" of Ford? Certainly, anyone with the technical knowhow could determine who the page *was* owned by - but many people don't have that technical knowledge, and will go with their gut reactions.
Of course, legal action is a typically heavy-handed response. Nonetheless, if I'm reading the situation correctly then I can feel a certain empathy for Ford's initial reaction..
Although your point is well-taken, it misses a couple of things. For starters, in most countries I would imagine that the currency *does* change on a reasonably regular basis, even if only in fairly small ways -- basically, to prevent piracy. It seems likely that all of the vending machines of which you speak would therefore need to be updated at any rate. Secondly - I didn't say anything about different sizes of money; it might well be less difficult to modify vending machines etc. if the only changes were in the colo[u]rs of the notes.
A good number of 'ifs' and 'probably's in there, I know - so my second point would be that all these kinds of tasks do not necessarily hurt the economy - after all, they provide jobs, circulate money, spread wealth.
Besides which, half of the things that you describe are the kinds of things that *need* to be replaced on a regular basis anyhow, and that *are* redesigned on an equally regular basis due to developments in technology (both of the manufacturers and of the counterfeiters).
And yes, you need to look at the numbers printed on the bill. That's part of my point.
It's interesting that most of the Americans posting seem to find it incredible that anyone might find their currency even a little confusing -- whilst many of the non-Americans have agreed that the money could be improved.
I suppose this suggests two alternative interpretations: first, that Americans are more intelligent and sophisticated than the rest of the world. Second, that Americans have become so accustomed to the process of having to look closely at their bills that they have come to believe that there is no alternative, and that no other circumstance could *possibly* be more convenient, more useful to those less fortunate (such as the sight-impaired) - in short, that America leads the world and that everyone else in the world is doing things wrongly.
Which view is accurate? I suppose that depends upon the country you're living in. (Yes, there *are* other countries..)
Oh? You think that it's more important for a 'standard' to be maintained, then, even if it's a poor standard which leads to operational difficulties?
It's a bizarre notion, admittedly, that some people might find *quickly finding and using the correct money* to be more important than *carrying it in a neat bundle* or *fanning it*.
Although I'm English, I've lived in the USA for a few years, on and off, and *still* find the homogeneity of the bank notes to be irritating. One shouldn't have to check twice that one isn't handing over a twenty instead of a dollar bill; besides which, it's just a *token* -- it doesn't *mean* anything, really. I say this simply because people get way too caught up on the perceived importance of things like this - the obvious example being those Europeans whose principal argument against the Euro has nothing to do with financial stability, but is instead concerned with such ridiculous notions as "tradition" and "national pride".
But I digress. Different American bank notes *are* difficult to distinguish between, and I'm not surprised that this is a concern when it comes to the ease of counterfeiting, either.
And if I'm rambling incoherently, it's because of staying up all night only to watch England lose. Bah.
On the one hand, the article claims that people don't need to spend a lot of time learning things, because they're so intuitive. And that often people don't do more than scratch the surface. On the other, it bemoans changes in the operation of new revisions of software.
I can't think of any good examples of commodity software whose surface, elementary functions have changed in any massive way across revisions. The cosmetic look-and-feel changes, certainly -- but you can *still* click on that "B" button to get your text bolded, etc.
Besides, if users aren't spending the time in getting to learn the more esoteric functions, doesn't it make some sense to try to reimplement those functions in a fashion that renders their use more intuitive? Even if it's at the expense of the (apparently few) people who have spent the time learning how to use them?
I understand the frustration -- but, well, you can always *not upgrade* if what you have works for you.
"like creating a programming language that forces good code"? I doubt it. It's my impression that even where languages do enforce various checks - perl in taint mode, for example - there are always ways around it or issues that the code can't check. After all, a significant proportion of "bugs" aren't faulty code per se, but correct code that is based upon incomplete or incorect assumptions and design.
The fact is, there are well-researched, well documented means of achieving quality control in development. They're simply not practiced by many because the implementation overheads are just too great. Many coders don't plan their code adequately, don't document their code adequately, and don't test their code adequately. However, this isn't necessarily a 'bad thing' -- frankly, in many circumstances it's just not that important if a few bugs sneak through which can be patched at a later date. As is always the case in such matters, security/stability are sacrificed for convenience and speed of development. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially in an industry where a product can be superseded or otherwise rendered obsolete even before its bugs become too much of a problem. (Although I'd admit that there are dangers in taking this for granted, as seen with the y2k issues..)
We should expect bad code because we expect code that rolls out quickly and at a low budget. We should expect bad code because most coders don't want to spend their time testing and documenting, and because most companies don't want to spend money on dedicated testers or on implementing rigid development processes. And we should expect bad code because even bad code can work 'well enough' to keep most people happy most of the time.
That there are a number of definitions isn't surprising: different people have different definitions of "freedom". The arguments between the GPL and BSD license crowds should serve as enough evidence of that. "Freedom" is a fairly nebulous concept -- if someone's free to use something, are they free to redistribute it? To license it under new terms? To sell it? There's a whole spate of issues involved with making something 'free', and as a result people have wildly different beliefs and expectations as to what their rights are, or should be, when it comes to software.
As a result, of course, the namespace is massively polluted -- the old, already confusing terms of "freeware", "shareware", etc. have been superseded by a plethora of different licenses and different ideals. But that's how life is. The other issue hinted at by the article, though, is quite interesting, and is one often confronted by the (GNU) 'free software' people: there's a preconception that something which is free must necessarily be lower quality, or there must be a 'hidden catch'. It's a very sad thing that people nowadays *expect* to have their freedom restricted; the article is correct when it says that people don't know what to do with their freedom. And, as we see on an increasingly frequent basis, some people are so brainwashed into this way of thinking that they begin to believe that freedom is an intrinsically bad, evil, "viral" thing.
Although RMS is often mocked, one of the great things about the GPL is that it quantifies, in very tangible, legalese-friendly terms, exactly *what it means*. It's put down in fairly clear terms, which can be debated on their own merits but which can be understood by anyone who bothers to spend the time. This serves to specify exactly what's meant by 'freedom' and, arguably equally importantly, it thus provides assistance and reassurance to companies and individuals who might otherwise have legal concerns with using and promoting such 'free software'.
On the other hand it might be argued that, if that's the case, 70% of people are using the network at way below capacity (and thus paying an awful lot more than they cost the system), serving as mitigation for the remaining 30%..
Yes; I'd wager that many of the people who have broadband have it precisely because they *use* the bandwidth; if you're only transferring email, web pages, etc., then you might just as well use a dialup connection. The ability to transfer large files quickly and cheaply is the raison d'etre for cable/dsl/etc. -- if it becomes too expensive for the average user to transfer mp3s and pirated software, they're just not going to pay it. It's difficult to gauge what the critical point might be, but I would be doubtful as to my willingness to spend anything more than, say, $100/month -- and I imagine that's more than most.
I believe that the "pay for content" idea is inherently flawed, and that it won't succeed whether applied to bandwidth or to web site access. I'd wager that, from an economic standpoint, introducing such fees would lead to *decreased* revenue for the providers. Only if the cost of broadband for the non-bw-hog were reduced to levels equal to or below those of regular dialup connections might such a change become at all viable..
Having said all of that, I imagine that what we might wind up seeing is a model akin to that of cellular phones, where various pricing levels are available according to projected bandwidth use, with excess being charged at a set rate - but the cable companies will need to be *very* careful in determining the ideal prices and, at any rate, you can bet that the need to compete with DSL etc. will keep any price hikes in check.
All it takes is for someone to set up a dodgy gopher server to exploit the problem, send out a few thousand emails (or include a link or whatnot in an otherwise harmless outlook email virus, etc.) for this to become rather more of an issue.
Think of an "I love you" variant - "click on this link to pick up your card!", for example - and the problem quickly becomes larger.
"a tradeoff most sysadmins are quick to take."? Blimey, I'm glad I don't work where you do or deal with any of your systems...
Surely no self-respecting sysadmin (by which I mean 'person administering real machines for real-life applications', and not 'hacker sitting at home') would make this tradeoff at all, let alone 'quickly'? To each their own, but the mind boggles..
Dear Lord. I don't like to jump on board the "let's bash JonKatz" bandwagon, but the man surely has to be trolling.
Slashdot has itself posted links to intelligent essays that debunk the whole "Star Wars mythology" nonsense, and yet Katz continues to blather about it. The whole 9/11 thing is just ridiculous -- why *should* Lucas care about, or make any reference to, the incident? And the suggestion that the millions of kids nowadays are somehow no longer disenfranchised from government and politics is.. wrong, stupid, ignorant, ludicrous.
Spider-man less hyped than Star Wars? Hardly. The movie showed in more places, was massively advertised, tied in to various "synergic" marketing campaigns, etc. etc. etc. By contrast, AOTC's launch was incredibly quiet, at least from where I was sitting. Lucas made mistakes with the first film, yes - and has learned from them. AOTC isn't a great movie, certainly (not that Spider-man *is*), but to continue bashing it for the failures of the first movie is childish.
Yes, AOTC is convuluted and doesn't really know what it's doing. But to pitch it against Spider-man in this way doesn't serve any purpose -- they're very different movies, and Katz is just being lazy and sensationalist (once again). Why is this man getting paid to write such unmitigated nonsense?
Slashdot Mirror
Name one. Subdivisions of existing cultures don't count--find a society somewhere that considers incest "normal" that isn't just a self-absorbed backlash against traditional society.
;p
I'm sorry, but I feel that your argument continues to be based upon instinct and conditioning rather than reason. Any cursory examination of the taboo of incest would reveal that its condemnation -- indeed, its very definition -- is applied differently across a number of cultures. Whilst it is true that incest of some form is generally prohibited in most major societies, the particular form varies to a great extent. And there are societies where incest has been either accepted or encouraged -- you should not let your revulsion for the idea lead you to blanket all such cases as "self-absorbed backlash against traditional society" -- that's a dangerous game, and is played by those who view *any* particular divergence from their accepted moral stance.
But they all include killing someone. The room to argue is if there are times when killing someone isn't murder, not if there are times when it is.
I don't understand your point. Capital punishment is commonly accepted in the United States -- a seemingly paradoxical notion given the avowed "Christian" stance of most of its leaders. I suppose you're suggesting that "murder is wrong, but killing people for socially acceptable reasons is okay"? You're on difficult ground.
I do not base my desire to eat animals on my religion. I have a much more basic drive than that: I am a human being, and humans are designed to get sustinence from meat. Animal fat tastes
You're able to live without meat. I doubt that you're commonly involved in war or faced with problems of survival. Another basic human instinct, since you seem to be alluding to those, is for procreation - and yet I dare say that it's not acceptable, by your moral code, to rape somebody. Why is that? The principle, after all, is the same.
It's not "animals vs. humans." I wouldn't eat my cats, nor my father-in-law's dog, nor a friend's horse. Each of these creatures provides
Oh, nonsense. The French and Italians eat horse regularly, for example. The true reason you wouldn't eat your cat or dog or horse has far less to do with any "tangible benefit" that they might confer than with social conditioning. You consider a cat to be "a pet", rather than a foodstuff. You consider the neatly packaged goods you buy at the grocery store to be "food", and so you eat those. It's mere abstraction, really - it's more convenient to think about animal foods in a different way than animal "companions".
And no, you haven't been at "eat or die time" (and, indeed, a balanced vegetarian diet is arguably healthier than a carnivorous one), so your arguments go rather out of the window; indeed, the growing number of vegetarians in the world reinforces the view that the "right" of eating meat is a sociological construct that, as its importance diminishes, becomes less valid in modern society.
As for the animals that I eat--cows, deer, fish, chickens, and pigs--none of them provide any benefit to me, whatsoever, except as a foodstuff / part of an ecosystem. (That's redundant, because, in the wild, all of the food animals get eaten as well.)
Fine - you're supporting my argument, though, that this comes down to draconian and, to use your earlier language, "hedonistic" living, rather than to inherent "good" or "evil". Ah, but you're a Christian - man is, of course, "better" than the animals, and science goes out of the window.
Science says nothing about morality. Only in the rather young and nebulous fields of sociology and pscyhology is the concept of people eating people even an item of debate. You can't use "doesn't eat meat" as a way to judge a creature "better." You might as well use "doesn't have sex" or "doesn't eat at all" to rank them--it makes about as much scientific sense.
I agree with you, but I believe I covered this in earlier postings -- as humans, we can only form our own individual moral standpoints. Nature doesn't care if we wipe the entire planet out but, as someone with eyes to view it and some kind of mechanism for feeling some kind of joy at that, I consider it important to keep the whole thing ticking over. I don't think there's inherent value in these things; what value there is is what we've come to make for ourselves.
ure we can--we do have it that way, in fact. And we will have it that way until science and religion sort out their mutual disagreements. (Which will take either the invention of a working practical time machine, or the direct intervention of God.)
My point is that whilst people seek to have it both ways, to do so involves a logical fallacy. I'm not personally content with glaring inconsistencies in my view of the world, and try to address them wherever possible (which is why I stopped eating meat, when I realised the irony of looking after cats etc. whilst devouring other animals).
We are moral creatures. But the very concept of "morality" is worthless if you don't use an objective measurement for "good" and "bad" morals
Your argument begs the question. You can't assert that "we are moral creatures" and then go on to say that "we need an objective measurement", because there *is* no objective measurement. Even if you subscribe to the notion that the Word of God is law, and provides us with such a measurement, that word is subject to interpretation and abuse. Now, it may be that you consider that law, clouded and obscure and contradictory as it is, to be a true standard. I can only ask that you consider the alternatives.
It might be time to take this to personal email, if you feel so inclined - and if you don't mind dealing with me at my email address, which is "kafka" AT "antichri" DOT "st"..
It's right to share scientiifc knowledge. It's right to protect the rights of people. It's wrong to murder. :)
According to whom? The answer: according to nothing but current social standards. In a society where incest is the social norm, incest is considered "right". The definition of "murder" varies according to who's writing the definition. Hell, the very idea of "rights of people" is inherently subjective. Which rights? Who gave you those rights? As an entity unto myself, don't I have the right to take the life of another human? No? Then why should I have the right to speak to another human?
Why can't a way of life be worthy? Even if there is no God, no afterlife, and no way off this mudball for our species, at least we can make it a better place in the short term by worthy actions.
My point was that notions of worth are dependent upon subjective values. It's considered "worthy" to protect other humans because we can readily understand that those humans are similar to ourselves, and because we wish to be protected ourselves. It's less commonly considered "unworthy" to kill animals because that link is less obvious, and because they 'taste good'. But what evidence is there to suggest that either is "more worthy" than any other? There are two options: either there's a higher power who determines "worth", in which case He has clearly been much understood across the centuries, or there is only opinion, dogma and tradition.
Let's not get into the application of morality to human-animal relationships, shall we? (I prefer a simpsons quote: "If that cow had the chance, he'd eat you too." Which is right; if the cow could digest me, he wouldn't think twice about eating me.)
Even if that is true, it is likely that the cow would be doing it thanks to an inability to better consider his actions. Your refusal to apply humanitarian concerns to animals is because you're socially programmed to believe that humans are 'better' than 'other animals' - an rather non-scientific attitude. Actually, I would argue that if we *are* 'better' than animals then it's precisely because we can make the decision *not* to eat meat.
You can't have it both ways: either we're morally aware creatures who should make moral decisions, or we're just animals and there's no morality.
(To address the seeming inconsistency in my own beliefs: as I said before, I don't believe that there's any absolute morality, but I do understand that I have certain traits -- my own "morality" -- and that I am happiest when acting in a way consistent with those inherent feelings.
You might wish to read Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian", then.
I find the notion of an objective "right or wrong" to be rather quaint, but by your own criteria neither Christianity nor religion in general have proven to be very "good".
I apologise if I implied that I think gratuitous self-satisfaction is a particularly worthy way of life (insomuch as any such way of life can be worthy). For my part, I try to deal with other creatures - all other creatures - in the way in which I would hope to be treated myself: since I enjoy life, I don't take life from others. Since I like to be fed, I believe others should be fed. That kind of hippy drivel.
Ah, so "acceptance" is equal to "moral"? I see. I'm inclined to believe that you're trolling; unfortunately, we clearly do live in a world in which people believe steadfastly in absolute 'right' and 'wrong', refuse to reconsider their notions, refuse to challenge their assumptions or to question what they're told.
I'm saddened by the suggestion that what's important is to live in a way that is accepted by other people. I'd prefer to live in a way that *I* believe to be "right", irrespective of what others might think (although, of course, I can't help but be influenced by the society I live in).
I find it disappointing that a satirical publication should feel the need to identify itself so obviously as such. The Onion is the masterpiece that it is because it's so clever, so subtle, so 'could be true'. SatireWire may be all of these things, but the name 'gives it away' - by clearly saying "It's a joke! Funny!", the joke's impact is lessened.
I'm not trying to be picky; it's just something of a bete noir of mine. I use The Onion as a perfect example to fellow Englishmen who claim that America doesn't understand irony, that American humo[u]r isn't funny. The Onion -- as all satire -- succeeds because it doesn't doubt the capacity of its audience to understand the humour. On this issue, SatireWire loses many points.
What is the center's view on the publishing of material that might be considered "offensive" or "dangerous", and does the center make subjective judgements upon the importance of one piece of intellectual property over another on the basis of 'artistic worth', 'decency', etc.? With only limited resources available to promote the archiving of data, is there the risk that important fringe documents may be left by the wayside, or ignored due to political/social concerns?
Yes, implementation always costs money. GNU/Linux is no different from any other operating system in this respect. But why is nobody in the media pointing out that *implementing and maintaining Microsoft software is similarly time consuming* and that, over any reasonable period of time, it's *at least as costly* as Linux? By allowing these constant references to "Linux being free like a puppy", and by not responding with incredulity, we're aiding Microsoft. It might seem obvious to you and me that the spin is silly, but journalists appear to be buying into it -- and so will potential users who are already frightened by the concept of arcane shells and incompatible office documents.
The true benefits of Linux need to be restated - as well as being 'free', it's also robust, powerful, usable. I'm concerned that these concessions by Microsoft are really just new forms of attack upon Linux - attacks that are potentially more damaging than the previous tactic of ignoring the operating system completely, since they play to the concerns of non-technical users (and management).
Thousands of happy Linux users can -- and must -- attest to the fact that Linux just works better for a large number of tasks. The ideas that it's more difficult to use well and involves more effort and money to deploy successfully are simply untrue, at least on the server market.
It's just Macrovision for broadcast, basically; the MPAA notes that "legislation would be required", and that's because without it manufacturers or third parties will quickly develop means of circumventing the protection. Of course, whatever happens, there *will* be the means of recording any broadcast stream -- these people need to recognise that, if it's human-recognisable, it's machine-recordable. All that's achieved by these kind of nonsensical restictions is a) increased costs for the manufacturers, which lead to b) increased costs for the consumer, and c) a less satisfactory user experience. But that media will continue to be recorded, nobody should have any doubt.
And besides, will anyone really stand for this? The idea of recordable media -- vcrs, in particular -- is very deeply ingrained, and most people probably consider it their "right" to record their television. And rightly so!
It's incredible to me that so many presumably intelligent people waste so much effort on these draconian measures. Corporate greed is to blame, of course - but, with a little thought, it seems to me that many of these people could do better by *not* alienating the populace, and by finding some other, better way of making their money such that everyone could be happy. The MPAA and their kind are scared of technology that they don't really understand, and they're losing their grip on the industry. Tough luck. Legislation shouldn't be put in place which will serve big business at the expense of the consumer. Rather, big business needs to learn to evolve to the consumer's wishes, or it needs to die.
I read the article. However, whilst I agree that Ford could have circumvented the redirection, this doesn't negate the potential issue that companies may potentially be at risk of having others redirect (transparently, even) to their sites in a similar fashion - these cases are *not* as clear cut as simply linking to a page, in my opinion. Is it entirely fair for the burden of responsibility to be placed upon the companies to be aware of everything that is "said using their voice", so to speak?
I'm not necessarily suggesting otherwise; I'm merely pointing out that the ethical arguments *aren't* as simple as they might otherwise seem. To extend (rather excessively) the analogy to human speech, what people seem to be saying is akin to "Well, I can disguise myself as you, put on silly or offensive clothes, and have people believe that I *am* you -- but that's okay because, well, you could stop me if you knew I was doing it".
Again, I think Ford might have been more.. delicate, in this situation -- I'd blame trigger-happy lawyers. But the point has already been made by somebody else that it's not as though 2600 *asked* Ford before setting up the redirection, either. Who's being inconsiderate of whom?
I'm afraid I'm going to post without having too great an understanding of the entire situation - nothing new to /., of course, but still.. at any rate, the site in question isn't too immediately informative as to what all of this is about, but as far as I can tell, Ford took 2600 to court for pointing www.fuckgeneralmotors.com to Ford's website.
Now, whilst I'm all for freedom of speech, isn't it perhaps understandable that Ford should have been upset, or concerned, by this? Whilst the link was presumably set up as a kind of compliment to Ford (at GM's expense), it's easy to see that Ford would be upset by such a move - the page might well, to the non-tech-savvy, look as though it had been set up *by* Ford themselves; hardly a professional image to betray.
In cases like this where it's not immediately clear *who* is doing the "speaking", isn't the concept of "freedom of speech" clouded? Wouldn't this stray into libel territory, where words are being essentially "put into the mouth" of Ford? Certainly, anyone with the technical knowhow could determine who the page *was* owned by - but many people don't have that technical knowledge, and will go with their gut reactions.
Of course, legal action is a typically heavy-handed response. Nonetheless, if I'm reading the situation correctly then I can feel a certain empathy for Ford's initial reaction..
Although your point is well-taken, it misses a couple of things. For starters, in most countries I would imagine that the currency *does* change on a reasonably regular basis, even if only in fairly small ways -- basically, to prevent piracy. It seems likely that all of the vending machines of which you speak would therefore need to be updated at any rate. Secondly - I didn't say anything about different sizes of money; it might well be less difficult to modify vending machines etc. if the only changes were in the colo[u]rs of the notes.
A good number of 'ifs' and 'probably's in there, I know - so my second point would be that all these kinds of tasks do not necessarily hurt the economy - after all, they provide jobs, circulate money, spread wealth.
Besides which, half of the things that you describe are the kinds of things that *need* to be replaced on a regular basis anyhow, and that *are* redesigned on an equally regular basis due to developments in technology (both of the manufacturers and of the counterfeiters).
And yes, you need to look at the numbers printed on the bill. That's part of my point.
It's interesting that most of the Americans posting seem to find it incredible that anyone might find their currency even a little confusing -- whilst many of the non-Americans have agreed that the money could be improved.
I suppose this suggests two alternative interpretations: first, that Americans are more intelligent and sophisticated than the rest of the world. Second, that Americans have become so accustomed to the process of having to look closely at their bills that they have come to believe that there is no alternative, and that no other circumstance could *possibly* be more convenient, more useful to those less fortunate (such as the sight-impaired) - in short, that America leads the world and that everyone else in the world is doing things wrongly.
Which view is accurate? I suppose that depends upon the country you're living in. (Yes, there *are* other countries..)
Oh? You think that it's more important for a 'standard' to be maintained, then, even if it's a poor standard which leads to operational difficulties?
It's a bizarre notion, admittedly, that some people might find *quickly finding and using the correct money* to be more important than *carrying it in a neat bundle* or *fanning it*.
Although I'm English, I've lived in the USA for a few years, on and off, and *still* find the homogeneity of the bank notes to be irritating. One shouldn't have to check twice that one isn't handing over a twenty instead of a dollar bill; besides which, it's just a *token* -- it doesn't *mean* anything, really. I say this simply because people get way too caught up on the perceived importance of things like this - the obvious example being those Europeans whose principal argument against the Euro has nothing to do with financial stability, but is instead concerned with such ridiculous notions as "tradition" and "national pride".
But I digress. Different American bank notes *are* difficult to distinguish between, and I'm not surprised that this is a concern when it comes to the ease of counterfeiting, either.
And if I'm rambling incoherently, it's because of staying up all night only to watch England lose. Bah.
On the one hand, the article claims that people don't need to spend a lot of time learning things, because they're so intuitive. And that often people don't do more than scratch the surface. On the other, it bemoans changes in the operation of new revisions of software.
I can't think of any good examples of commodity software whose surface, elementary functions have changed in any massive way across revisions. The cosmetic look-and-feel changes, certainly -- but you can *still* click on that "B" button to get your text bolded, etc.
Besides, if users aren't spending the time in getting to learn the more esoteric functions, doesn't it make some sense to try to reimplement those functions in a fashion that renders their use more intuitive? Even if it's at the expense of the (apparently few) people who have spent the time learning how to use them?
I understand the frustration -- but, well, you can always *not upgrade* if what you have works for you.
"like creating a programming language that forces good code"? I doubt it. It's my impression that even where languages do enforce various checks - perl in taint mode, for example - there are always ways around it or issues that the code can't check. After all, a significant proportion of "bugs" aren't faulty code per se, but correct code that is based upon incomplete or incorect assumptions and design.
The fact is, there are well-researched, well documented means of achieving quality control in development. They're simply not practiced by many because the implementation overheads are just too great. Many coders don't plan their code adequately, don't document their code adequately, and don't test their code adequately. However, this isn't necessarily a 'bad thing' -- frankly, in many circumstances it's just not that important if a few bugs sneak through which can be patched at a later date. As is always the case in such matters, security/stability are sacrificed for convenience and speed of development. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially in an industry where a product can be superseded or otherwise rendered obsolete even before its bugs become too much of a problem. (Although I'd admit that there are dangers in taking this for granted, as seen with the y2k issues..)
We should expect bad code because we expect code that rolls out quickly and at a low budget. We should expect bad code because most coders don't want to spend their time testing and documenting, and because most companies don't want to spend money on dedicated testers or on implementing rigid development processes. And we should expect bad code because even bad code can work 'well enough' to keep most people happy most of the time.
That there are a number of definitions isn't surprising: different people have different definitions of "freedom". The arguments between the GPL and BSD license crowds should serve as enough evidence of that. "Freedom" is a fairly nebulous concept -- if someone's free to use something, are they free to redistribute it? To license it under new terms? To sell it? There's a whole spate of issues involved with making something 'free', and as a result people have wildly different beliefs and expectations as to what their rights are, or should be, when it comes to software.
As a result, of course, the namespace is massively polluted -- the old, already confusing terms of "freeware", "shareware", etc. have been superseded by a plethora of different licenses and different ideals. But that's how life is. The other issue hinted at by the article, though, is quite interesting, and is one often confronted by the (GNU) 'free software' people: there's a preconception that something which is free must necessarily be lower quality, or there must be a 'hidden catch'. It's a very sad thing that people nowadays *expect* to have their freedom restricted; the article is correct when it says that people don't know what to do with their freedom. And, as we see on an increasingly frequent basis, some people are so brainwashed into this way of thinking that they begin to believe that freedom is an intrinsically bad, evil, "viral" thing.
Although RMS is often mocked, one of the great things about the GPL is that it quantifies, in very tangible, legalese-friendly terms, exactly *what it means*. It's put down in fairly clear terms, which can be debated on their own merits but which can be understood by anyone who bothers to spend the time. This serves to specify exactly what's meant by 'freedom' and, arguably equally importantly, it thus provides assistance and reassurance to companies and individuals who might otherwise have legal concerns with using and promoting such 'free software'.
*grin*
:)
1gb/month isn't heavy use. I get through a few gig a week, and I'm probably a relatively light user compared with many..
On the other hand it might be argued that, if that's the case, 70% of people are using the network at way below capacity (and thus paying an awful lot more than they cost the system), serving as mitigation for the remaining 30% ..
Yes; I'd wager that many of the people who have broadband have it precisely because they *use* the bandwidth; if you're only transferring email, web pages, etc., then you might just as well use a dialup connection. The ability to transfer large files quickly and cheaply is the raison d'etre for cable/dsl/etc. -- if it becomes too expensive for the average user to transfer mp3s and pirated software, they're just not going to pay it. It's difficult to gauge what the critical point might be, but I would be doubtful as to my willingness to spend anything more than, say, $100/month -- and I imagine that's more than most.
I believe that the "pay for content" idea is inherently flawed, and that it won't succeed whether applied to bandwidth or to web site access. I'd wager that, from an economic standpoint, introducing such fees would lead to *decreased* revenue for the providers. Only if the cost of broadband for the non-bw-hog were reduced to levels equal to or below those of regular dialup connections might such a change become at all viable..
Having said all of that, I imagine that what we might wind up seeing is a model akin to that of cellular phones, where various pricing levels are available according to projected bandwidth use, with excess being charged at a set rate - but the cable companies will need to be *very* careful in determining the ideal prices and, at any rate, you can bet that the need to compete with DSL etc. will keep any price hikes in check.
Imagine.. tiny, tiny apples..
All it takes is for someone to set up a dodgy gopher server to exploit the problem, send out a few thousand emails (or include a link or whatnot in an otherwise harmless outlook email virus, etc.) for this to become rather more of an issue.
Think of an "I love you" variant - "click on this link to pick up your card!", for example - and the problem quickly becomes larger.
"I smell varmint poontang, and the only good varmint poontang is dead varmint poontang, I think."
"a tradeoff most sysadmins are quick to take."? Blimey, I'm glad I don't work where you do or deal with any of your systems...
Surely no self-respecting sysadmin (by which I mean 'person administering real machines for real-life applications', and not 'hacker sitting at home') would make this tradeoff at all, let alone 'quickly'? To each their own, but the mind boggles..
Dear Lord. I don't like to jump on board the "let's bash JonKatz" bandwagon, but the man surely has to be trolling.
Slashdot has itself posted links to intelligent essays that debunk the whole "Star Wars mythology" nonsense, and yet Katz continues to blather about it. The whole 9/11 thing is just ridiculous -- why *should* Lucas care about, or make any reference to, the incident? And the suggestion that the millions of kids nowadays are somehow no longer disenfranchised from government and politics is.. wrong, stupid, ignorant, ludicrous.
Spider-man less hyped than Star Wars? Hardly. The movie showed in more places, was massively advertised, tied in to various "synergic" marketing campaigns, etc. etc. etc. By contrast, AOTC's launch was incredibly quiet, at least from where I was sitting. Lucas made mistakes with the first film, yes - and has learned from them. AOTC isn't a great movie, certainly (not that Spider-man *is*), but to continue bashing it for the failures of the first movie is childish.
Yes, AOTC is convuluted and doesn't really know what it's doing. But to pitch it against Spider-man in this way doesn't serve any purpose -- they're very different movies, and Katz is just being lazy and sensationalist (once again). Why is this man getting paid to write such unmitigated nonsense?