Raising milage standards is a good thing, but better public transit and measures to discourage/make unnecessary individual ownership of vehicles in cities might be a better approach.
Why would you assume the wife did anything at all? A lot of guys are just crazy and let wishful thinking go to extremes. Likewise, it's sometimes easy for people to misread a friendship as something else.
Given that this guy was nuts enough to try a scheme like this and the woman is married, I'd assume that the guy is entirely in the wrong.
I doubt these treatments will be expensive, unless the current IP regime continues. Genes are just data - we're not talking about building a bridge for each person.
I'm pretty keen on improving things. I imagine Slashdot has its fair share of transhumanist-leaning people.
Attribute to plate tectonics? You mean the incredibly slow process whereby the continental plates move around? The process that's so slow that it couldn't make effects like this at the rate we're seeing?... nah, you clearly mean some thing else that goes by the name plate tectonics. Sadly, I've never heard of another meaning. Please enlighten us?
I'm a socialist, and skeptical of broad democracy. Nontheless, I condemn Chavez - his actions look more like a nation-driven ego trip, not an attempt to better society. He may have started out with a number of measures to benefit the people, and he may still be pursuing some of them, but in order to be effective, socialism must not be led by people like Chavez, it must tolerate inner criticism (not the half-assed "Democratic Centralism" that many historical socialists have advocated), and it must not insist on the kind of pomp and universal support that kings of times past advocated.
Lese Majeste and media controls are a lousy foundation for a society regardless of how well-intentioned reformers are. A society does not need to be democratic, and it should not be capitalist, but it must keep its feet firmly on the ground, or it risks becoming far worse than the capitalist systems it would replace. Chavez should be viewed by my fellow socialists as an embarassment, and as a menace to everyone.
I'm glad you wern't around at the time of the underground railroad.
"Freeing someone's slaves isn't civil disobedience, it's theft. If you really wanted to end slavery, you'd earn money to buy those slaves to set them free"
I am not trying to be Gandhi, I am trying to win. Encouraging a culture where IP claims are disrespected and seen as legacy is the best tactic we have to begin to prepare society to abolish it. I don't in fact particularly care to take on authority figures - it's not that I'm afraid of it, it's that it would not be an effective confrontation.
In the meantime, we can keep spreading the ideas of IP abolitionism, encouraging people to ignore it when they can get away with it and to push for legal change. A movement is important when fighting such established interests - buying or convincing one politician won't really do (and isn't really doable on this issue)
It would be great then to come to an understanding with companies regarding patents that if they ever attempt to enforce (or transfer their patent to another to enforce) a single patent, we will take notice and consider them hostile to our interests. Defensive patents, sure, we can live with that.
I think some earlier drafts of the GPL3 attempted to have this kind of reasoning - I think those clauses were removed.
Some time back, gaim had a UI redesign where they replaced protocol-specific icons with generic ones, in the decision that hiding the protocol is the right thing to do. A lot of us thought that was boneheaded, and some people forked GAIM, others wrote plugins to undo the change, and a lot of us offered harsh criticism of the developers responsible. If it were a democracy, we probably would've voted it undone. Right decision? Wrong decision? We didn't like it, but most of us decided not to walk away from it (either to the forks or further away).
Opensource provides new possibilities for governance - the ability to fork is something we don't really have in nations (splitting into bits really isn't the same), and with the exception of protocol decisions we generally can reshape our environment as we like (local patches, greasemonkey, etc). By having so much local variance possible, we no longer have our elbows so close to our neighbours and so there's less hazard for technocratic or autocratic decision styles (provided they use licenses that sustain this type of environment - some developers like Tuomo Valkonen prove to be batshit insane and play license games to compound their boneheaded technical decisions).
With licensing messes out of the way and the ability to fork, the most precious thing for us is mostly time/attention. If we want to fork a project, we're balancing our time and attention versus how much we care over the relevant issue. It's the easiest thing in the world to follow a path paved by the actual developer, while maintaining patches of any size (or starting a parallel community for a true fork) is an ongoing burden. If it's for an important enough reason, we'll do it. If that reason turns out to be not important enough to be worth the bother, all we can do is complain and hope to convince whomever is already doing that work to pave our path.
True, but many of them are also strong believers in "rule of law". I suspect that even many libertarians/minarchists might support a bill like this because they see government as a logician might - clear rules and openness are probably worth the cost from that perspective. Republican libertarians have, for example, advocated auditing the fed despite the cost of that audit.
As a socialist, this is one of the few areas where I can find strong common ground with LPers:)
The interests break down as: Such a law would be bad for business efficiency Such a law would be good for some conceptions of justice Such a law would be bad for people who believe in an absolute (or very strong) right to free contract
It's not hard to see how people might go different ways on it. I'm far to the left of the democrats, and so it's an easy "yes" for me.
All rights are limited and nuanced. Society is not (and should not be) math-y -- the real world is too complex and demands too much comprimise for logicians to be satisfied:)
Some other countries have had laws like this for awhile. It's a kind of bill that I can't imagine either party or any politician disliking out of principle.
I'm no fan of BushJr, but this might be something so difficult that even a reasonably competent president would've had a very tough time (and a highly competent one might have to spend a lot of time and effort to pull it off).
It's still boneheaded that "just do it" means of resolving the disagreement won out over "let's discuss this" or "let's go up the chain of command until we find someone with joint authority and they decide". When there's a disagreement between state police and federal police over legal matters, there's are good reasons we take things to courts rather than expect to see two different police forces in a shootout, namely the consideration of the issues is thoughtful, it sets precedent, and the final decision is carried out in an orderly fashion.
Kucinich or Nader would probably not have supported ACTA, but unfortunately they're fringe politicians (as is Ron Paul, whose views I usually strongly dislike). Intellectual Property is unfortunately a sacred cow in American politics (and in any country that's part of the Washington consensus).
I understand where they're coming from - there are a lot of studies showing that this would help public health considerably. However, in this case I don't think the cost to taste and autonomy is worth it. I don't begrudge them for raising the issue nor this proposed solution (in a democratic-ish society, putting ideas on the table isn't a bad thing), even as much as I think this way of solving it isn't one that sits well with me.
So it's like System 6 without Multifinder... except that it has fully modern, powerful APIs.
You have a point that it doesn't expose multitasking to the user, but it's not "hardly an OS" because of that. When there's as much of an application market for it as there is, we should yell and scream about it being a gated community and hold it against them.
I think this is part of Apple's corporate culture - they never signed on to the OS as an "open(ish) platform" thing that PC users (and unix geeks to an even greater extent) came to expect. I don't know what we can do but not buy their products - it's a pity because I'd generally like to suggest that non-tech people go with OSX (and tech folk should go with Linux or OpenBSD), but I don't like supporting companies that do this kind of thing.
Not much to discuss, really. These games probably will be built on something layered over Apple's Objective-C frameworks, not on X, and so porting this stuff to other Unices would take a lot of work.
Slashdot Mirror
Raising milage standards is a good thing, but better public transit and measures to discourage/make unnecessary individual ownership of vehicles in cities might be a better approach.
Why would you assume the wife did anything at all? A lot of guys are just crazy and let wishful thinking go to extremes. Likewise, it's sometimes easy for people to misread a friendship as something else.
Given that this guy was nuts enough to try a scheme like this and the woman is married, I'd assume that the guy is entirely in the wrong.
Please don't tell me you're one of those Libertarian/Randian types who inserts into every conversation a sly mention of discredited economist Hayek.
And then, 30 years later, his children would both end up working at google and we will have come full circle.
I doubt these treatments will be expensive, unless the current IP regime continues. Genes are just data - we're not talking about building a bridge for each person.
I'm pretty keen on improving things. I imagine Slashdot has its fair share of transhumanist-leaning people.
Attribute to plate tectonics? You mean the incredibly slow process whereby the continental plates move around? The process that's so slow that it couldn't make effects like this at the rate we're seeing? ... nah, you clearly mean some thing else that goes by the name plate tectonics. Sadly, I've never heard of another meaning. Please enlighten us?
Yeah, longer life, better education, better healthcare, generally happier people.
Awful. I'm glad we don't have anything like that here.
I'm a socialist, and skeptical of broad democracy. Nontheless, I condemn Chavez - his actions look more like a nation-driven ego trip, not an attempt to better society. He may have started out with a number of measures to benefit the people, and he may still be pursuing some of them, but in order to be effective, socialism must not be led by people like Chavez, it must tolerate inner criticism (not the half-assed "Democratic Centralism" that many historical socialists have advocated), and it must not insist on the kind of pomp and universal support that kings of times past advocated.
Lese Majeste and media controls are a lousy foundation for a society regardless of how well-intentioned reformers are. A society does not need to be democratic, and it should not be capitalist, but it must keep its feet firmly on the ground, or it risks becoming far worse than the capitalist systems it would replace. Chavez should be viewed by my fellow socialists as an embarassment, and as a menace to everyone.
Cute, but I'm not an ostrich. There are many things in the world that I don't like, but being *that* sensitive to framing is a pain.
I'm glad you wern't around at the time of the underground railroad.
"Freeing someone's slaves isn't civil disobedience, it's theft. If you really wanted to end slavery, you'd earn money to buy those slaves to set them free"
I am not trying to be Gandhi, I am trying to win. Encouraging a culture where IP claims are disrespected and seen as legacy is the best tactic we have to begin to prepare society to abolish it. I don't in fact particularly care to take on authority figures - it's not that I'm afraid of it, it's that it would not be an effective confrontation.
In the meantime, we can keep spreading the ideas of IP abolitionism, encouraging people to ignore it when they can get away with it and to push for legal change. A movement is important when fighting such established interests - buying or convincing one politician won't really do (and isn't really doable on this issue)
It would be great then to come to an understanding with companies regarding patents that if they ever attempt to enforce (or transfer their patent to another to enforce) a single patent, we will take notice and consider them hostile to our interests. Defensive patents, sure, we can live with that.
I think some earlier drafts of the GPL3 attempted to have this kind of reasoning - I think those clauses were removed.
Some time back, gaim had a UI redesign where they replaced protocol-specific icons with generic ones, in the decision that hiding the protocol is the right thing to do. A lot of us thought that was boneheaded, and some people forked GAIM, others wrote plugins to undo the change, and a lot of us offered harsh criticism of the developers responsible. If it were a democracy, we probably would've voted it undone. Right decision? Wrong decision? We didn't like it, but most of us decided not to walk away from it (either to the forks or further away).
Opensource provides new possibilities for governance - the ability to fork is something we don't really have in nations (splitting into bits really isn't the same), and with the exception of protocol decisions we generally can reshape our environment as we like (local patches, greasemonkey, etc). By having so much local variance possible, we no longer have our elbows so close to our neighbours and so there's less hazard for technocratic or autocratic decision styles (provided they use licenses that sustain this type of environment - some developers like Tuomo Valkonen prove to be batshit insane and play license games to compound their boneheaded technical decisions).
With licensing messes out of the way and the ability to fork, the most precious thing for us is mostly time/attention. If we want to fork a project, we're balancing our time and attention versus how much we care over the relevant issue. It's the easiest thing in the world to follow a path paved by the actual developer, while maintaining patches of any size (or starting a parallel community for a true fork) is an ongoing burden. If it's for an important enough reason, we'll do it. If that reason turns out to be not important enough to be worth the bother, all we can do is complain and hope to convince whomever is already doing that work to pave our path.
True, but many of them are also strong believers in "rule of law". I suspect that even many libertarians/minarchists might support a bill like this because they see government as a logician might - clear rules and openness are probably worth the cost from that perspective. Republican libertarians have, for example, advocated auditing the fed despite the cost of that audit.
As a socialist, this is one of the few areas where I can find strong common ground with LPers :)
The interests break down as:
Such a law would be bad for business efficiency
Such a law would be good for some conceptions of justice
Such a law would be bad for people who believe in an absolute (or very strong) right to free contract
It's not hard to see how people might go different ways on it. I'm far to the left of the democrats, and so it's an easy "yes" for me.
All rights are limited and nuanced. Society is not (and should not be) math-y -- the real world is too complex and demands too much comprimise for logicians to be satisfied :)
Some other countries have had laws like this for awhile. It's a kind of bill that I can't imagine either party or any politician disliking out of principle.
Kim Jong-Il. Duh.
I'm no fan of BushJr, but this might be something so difficult that even a reasonably competent president would've had a very tough time (and a highly competent one might have to spend a lot of time and effort to pull it off).
It's still boneheaded that "just do it" means of resolving the disagreement won out over "let's discuss this" or "let's go up the chain of command until we find someone with joint authority and they decide". When there's a disagreement between state police and federal police over legal matters, there's are good reasons we take things to courts rather than expect to see two different police forces in a shootout, namely the consideration of the issues is thoughtful, it sets precedent, and the final decision is carried out in an orderly fashion.
Kucinich or Nader would probably not have supported ACTA, but unfortunately they're fringe politicians (as is Ron Paul, whose views I usually strongly dislike). Intellectual Property is unfortunately a sacred cow in American politics (and in any country that's part of the Washington consensus).
I understand where they're coming from - there are a lot of studies showing that this would help public health considerably. However, in this case I don't think the cost to taste and autonomy is worth it. I don't begrudge them for raising the issue nor this proposed solution (in a democratic-ish society, putting ideas on the table isn't a bad thing), even as much as I think this way of solving it isn't one that sits well with me.
So it's like System 6 without Multifinder... except that it has fully modern, powerful APIs.
You have a point that it doesn't expose multitasking to the user, but it's not "hardly an OS" because of that. When there's as much of an application market for it as there is, we should yell and scream about it being a gated community and hold it against them.
You don't see the same culture here that killed the clones?
I think this is part of Apple's corporate culture - they never signed on to the OS as an "open(ish) platform" thing that PC users (and unix geeks to an even greater extent) came to expect. I don't know what we can do but not buy their products - it's a pity because I'd generally like to suggest that non-tech people go with OSX (and tech folk should go with Linux or OpenBSD), but I don't like supporting companies that do this kind of thing.
Not much to discuss, really. These games probably will be built on something layered over Apple's Objective-C frameworks, not on X, and so porting this stuff to other Unices would take a lot of work.