I am a shareholder and I received no opportunity to vote on this. What good is a politician on the board? We barely got any use out of Larry Ellison! Now we'll have another lazy has-been sucking at Apple's teat. Instead, why not hire someone who's been relentlessly successful at what they do?
Apple: please pull your head out and undo this monstrous distraction. Focus! Stick to hiring great minds to make great systems. Jeez, this is worse than making Sinbad an Apple Fellow. Why on Earth are you polarizing and dividing your market when you need more than ever to unify and extend it!?
I am neither a conservative nor a liberal (nor a theist for that matter). This would be just as stupid if GW, or any Libertarian candidate had been tapped. Businessmen should run businesses. They're good at it. Politicians don't produce value. They siphon it.
This is a BAD sign. This means Apple has truly given up the integrity of economic entrepreneurship and is going down the dark path of political entrepreneurship. I have never doubted Apple before, through the darkest days. Now almost all my hope is lost. And they've done it themselves.
I assure you that I will be using my shares to oppose this. And I'll encourage all fellow shareholders to join me in ousting this non-entity from Apple's bridge.
If you define a "rational person" as one who *tends* to make rational decisions, then I agree with you. But the danger isn't in the persuader's charisma, it's in his/her irrationality. In fact, that goofy Heaven's Gate leader was practically anti-charismatic by most accounts.
But there is another level to this. A person who commits to a policy of Reason in all matters, inward and outward, is essentially "disabling root access" to such charismatic nut-cases (while still enjoying, on occasion, what curious entertainment may be offered by the less insidious ones). The same person refuses, as a matter of pride, to remain in the "default setting": the animal hind-brain. To this person, sentience is a burden proudly borne.
The alternative is horrible. Devoid of rational faculty, Man is the least feasible animal on the planet -- a pushover for Nature.
Lovin' the Dave gag. You don't get a straight line like that every day!:-D
"Let it just be said that this Romantic tried to call her poor justifications objectivity for a good reason... to hide the lack of any internal coherency."
You're on. Name the lapses in coherency.
"At least half the people that "like" her simply don't understand her and buy the surface level rhetoric of libertarean objectivity."
You're right about that. I've met them. But you're a reasonable chap, right? So you won't call "objectivist" one who claims it for himself falsely, then, will you?
"She hated Libertarians,"
Yes, she did. Her political philosophy was grounded in her ethics and more deeply in her epistemology. It's evident that she believed serious political reform was untenable without a major philosophical evolution. How can a government protect rights they don't believe in? The Libertarians believe there are political solutions to philosophical problems (actually they don't acknowledge the problems are philosophical in nature -- it'd undermine their ringquest). And they don't care to ground their political notions in sound philosophy. As a result they're just shifting dogma like those of the other parties. The LP is well on its way to becoming yet another party (albeit a tiny one) awash in moral pragmatism.
That said, I've voted for their candidate on occasion, when I think it's the best of the available choices. And because the two major parties no longer offset each other as well as they have in the past.
""Objectivity" for her refers to the cold hard outlook, the ability to step over a homeless person, not in the scientific sense of subjecting one's hypothesis to doubt and test."
This is nonsense. A.) When does she step over a homeless person? In what book of hers? In what historical account? As I recall, in Atlas Shrugged, she has Dagny enjoy dinner with a tramp on her train. While it was not for charity, she was aware of the value of the meal to the tramp -- and she treated him respectfully. What would you have preferred? A kiss? Jeez. B.) In science, hypotheses are not "subjected" to "doubt", just to test. Courageous scientists enjoy subjecting hypotheses to the strictest tests because they marvel at those which remain standing. They maintain no affection toward false hypotheses. Because Rand shares none of her own personal introspection with you, you assume there'd been none? Read more. Objectivism isn't about spouting fiat and watching the world morph into spires of glass and steel. It's about determining and stating one's desire, finding out what it takes to accomplish it, and then doing it.
"Nietzsche is a much better way to spend your youthful rebellion against the herd."
Rebellions against herds are for the so-called non-conformists. They're blind to the irony that their ideals are determined by others -- that they've evaded the task of selecting their ideals. What happens when their "enemies" change their ideals? Do they lose the enemy or swap ideals? It's not about what you're against. It's about what you're *for*.
"She [...] was justifying why men that rise to the top of the capitalist world, like Ken Lay, are a better sort of people, period."
There are characters in Atlas Shrugged who "rose to the top" of their world who were most assuredly not capitalists. They were, in fact, villains. Perhaps you should consider reading the book.
"Rand is actually quite dangerous, I think."
Not really. She was short and out of shape. And now she's dead. But perhaps you mean to say that her ideas are quite dangerous. In the sense that they arm rational people against an irrational era, you're right.
"She represents an anti-rationalism which is always a key ingredient in fascism."
The "key ingredient" in fascism is the belief that the State is the creator/grantor of all rights. One would have to be anti-Reason to take this view. Please demonstrate how Ayn Rand supported this view. Take your time.
That remains to be seen. But because your antipathy to him is palpable, that statement looks a lot like an attempt at erecting a straw man. In a mixed economy two sorts of men may become successful. One depends upon the voluntary cooperation of his partners and customers. The other depends on deception and political connections. Naturally, men exist who can attribute their success to some combination of these two factors. But only the first is capitalist.
"Isn't capitalism supposed to lead to a perfect universe if everyone just is allowed to be as greedy as they want?"
Interesting premise. But false. The universe is already "perfect" so to speak. Man cannot change the laws of nature. A man can only change himself (how he rules himself) -- and defend himself. Your use of the word "allowed" reveals a lot, though. Precisely who is "booted and spurred" to decide who may not benefit himself and in what way? And why?
The student who called a student activities fee a form of taxation is no objectivist. Sounds more like what I'd call an "idiot". A little perspective: when purchasing an education, "fees" are part of the ongoing agreement between the student and the institution. There are many schools to choose from. Only governments tax. What a maroon.
However, it *is* true that information is not necessary to make a free decision. It won't be a very good decision -- a better word would be "whim" or "caprice" -- but it will be a free decision.
Information *is* necessary to make -- surprise -- an *informed* decision. Establishing a personal policy of gathering relevant information is a good idea. How much information does that take?
"In general, absolutists are dangerous..."
Interesting assertion. To whom? In my experience, the only dangerous people (to me) are irrational. If you disagree with that perhaps you can tell me how rational people can be dangerous to each other. I'll cede the point that -- when provoked -- rational people can (and should) be dangerous to irrational people.
"In general, absolutists... can be easily painted into logical corners."
Relativists can escape any constraints. But they can't bring their principles with them.
"They refuse to bend a principle"
Principles stand or break. Anything that bends is a sorry excuse for a principle. What happens when principles break depends on whether the person is honest or dishonest. An honest person scuttles a lesser principle when he learns that it contradicts a greater principle. A dishonest person deludes himself into believing he actually had any principles.
"... to bend a principle leading to interesting contradictions..."
How does "bending" a "principle" produce anything other than contradictions?
I've met a few who call themselves objectivists because they've read a chapter or two and think they've confirmed their Nietzchean views. If you've met any of these people and thought "this is objectivism," I can understand your opinion. I trust that it is subject to your ongoing appraisal.
Atlas Shrugged presents neither dystopia nor utopia. Both notions are about the last irrevocable note a culture strikes. It shows the worst in men's spirits and the best -- two cultures. The last note of one isn't irrevocable and the note struck by the other isn't it's last.
OS X ships with awk & perl. So you'll be right at home.
You can also get LaTeX and mutt. You can even compile them yourself, if that's how you like to spend your time.
-B...
Window cycling in other apps ...
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 1
In Terminal.app, you can also use Command- and Command- to cycle between windows. In Explorer, it's Command-~ and Command-Shift-~ for window cycling. I agree that it's a shame the application developers did not follow a standard. C'est la vie.
-B...
Command-Tab and Command-Shift-Tab
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 1
... Break free from the 'cycle'. A little more investigation into Mac OS X would have revealed this.
There are many dangers in this arena. Lots of knee jerk reactions are forming this moment, and getting ready to post. Before many of them do, I'll say this:
Inventors and the companies for whom they've done the inventing own the rights to their unique achievement and should be protected in these intellectual rights; and individuals own the rights to their own observations and may not be restricted in their right to announce these observations; and by extension: reporters and the organizations for whom they report own their observations about any freely available information and should be protected in their reporting about it.
So the only question that remains is about how information is obtained. If it is obtained in harmony with the terms set by the owner of the information, then there can be no legal issue. If this isn't the law it should be. If it is obtained against the just terms of the owner of the information, they have every right to sue for the breach.
Conversely, if an organization sues because they're unhappy that their information has received negative press, their case should be thrown out of court. And if they've received protection for something that isn't truly an innovation, that protection should be nullified.
It might be a frightening notion to some of you, but as nice as good laws, courts, and patents are, they don't do much good in the instances where corrupt legislators pass bad laws that grant "rights" to some at the very real expense of others, where judges and juries rule in favor of culprits, and where patent clerks grant frivolous patents.
It should be readily apparent from this that there is nothing wrong with the system itself, but the people. Better laws and regulations won't fix it -- never have, never will. But they'll help, by not being another cause of failure. Better courts can't exist without better judges and better juries. But they can't do anything about crappy laws and patents. And better patents can't exist without better patent clerks. If they're not following the law now, no better law will necessarily fix the situation.
Asking for better laws and better courts and patents is just a way of asking someone else to make it all better so you can go back to playing Quake and fighting for first post. It won't work. But it'll make you feel very self-righteous and done with your citizenship for the day. If that's all you want, you're not really relevant to to the solution. But you make a fine road block.
Even worse, taking a shortcut, picking the easiest route and saying something like "patents suck, screw the inventors", or "the press should be free to report anything it wants, even if they stole the information", or "companies should be able to do and say whatever they want to protect their livelihood", or even "freedom sucks, screw the press" (this is an international forum after all) will only win small-minded converts and make it more difficult for Reason to prevail. The motivation of (and appropriate judgment for) those who know this and do it anyway should be clear.
The only hope available to you is to use the best tool evolution has afforded you: think. Really consider the issues. Formulate rational concepts about them. Discuss them. Revise these concepts whenever better reasoning is heard. Then advocate your reasoning. This is the most important political activity. Summon the courage to do it even when horribly outnumbered, and especially when those around you don't even realize they're propagating some popular but false bromide. Next: serve on any jury you can be part of. Use your wisdom there to quell the herd mentality, and see that justice is done. If you have it in you to fight such battles, and know how to do it without sacrificing your integrity: run for office. Last (in democratic republics): vote. In countries that are not democratic republics (i.e. you have the right and means to participate and the real workings of the government are codified in law): leave. They're only benefitting from your presence at your expense. Life is better where men and women are free to converse, and to own the fruits of their labors -- both the manual and intellectual kinds.
It won't happen overnight. And it may not happen in our lifetimes. But life and liberty are worth having and happiness is worth pursuing. Don't you agree?
I have long been a fan of Excel on the Macintosh -- since its earliest days, in fact. I miss the sort of cooperative tone the future held for us all in those days.
In your view, how can Microsoft and *nix/xBSD communities work together to make the brightest future for all of us?
When native FireWire drives (currently vapor) arrive, I hope you'll reassess. As for now, FireWire isn't the bottleneck. It's the conversion from IDE to FW.
-B...
Shouldn't they enjoy the same rights to speak on the matter to whomever they wish? Where does all this sentiment toward implied prior restraint come from? Why should those who operate the company be bound by different rules?
-B...
Let me get this straight. Some of you are willing to tie up your nuts in an NDA to keep using spaghetti code just because it's GPL (or because "everybody" else is using it)? Isn't this the same crowd who jumped the Windows ship for Linux?
Why are so many of you so desperately clinging to something so flawed when something so obviously superior can make your lives easier? Which do you value more: the GPL or your own happiness? Jeez, some of you remind me of the People's Front of Judea Suicide Squad (or was that the Judean People's Front?).
At least take a look at djbdns. Think about these questions as you do. How the hell can you crack it? What of value does the license actually prevent you from doing; and of how much value is that really? Why would a multi-million dollar organization use BIND instead? What love should they have for the GPL? Why would any BIND administrator get to keep his job after getting cracked, when he could have been using djbdns? Why would BIND improve if it didn't face the threat of extinction for its sins? How many assholes are among your favorite artists? Scientists? Businessmen? Why have you not thrown out their work with their party invitation?
Get your head out of your ass and choose something that actually does what it's supposed to do, without holes!
I love the quality of thought that has gone into the technical aspects of this problem. But the base assumption that this must be accomplished with "public" money (loot) is troublesome to me.
Why not let me keep my money, instead of swiping it for some official state-sanctioned crusade to Mars? Why not let those who want to go polish that rock go and do it with their own damn money? If they can do it, more power to 'em.
Without progressive taxes it wouldn't be as hard to get to Gates' and Ellison's level of wealth. Imagine actually keeping the value you create! And they're probably just at ground floor of the amount of wealth required to mount a project this ambitious. Imagine what they and other men like them could accomplish without Lilliputian tripwires. How can a bureaucracy compete with an equivalently-provisioned passionate individual in the pursuit of a productive goal?
I have been freelancing for over 11 years. I complete the project and leave. Every time. I come back if they have another. And they usually call.
You don't need a job. You merely need to present interested parties with your attractive skills. If you don't have them, get them. Jeez, in the early, lean days I was even a secretary! The most iimportant skill is being able to make their job easier. Tell me that doesn't inspire the business equivalent of love!
Now try conceiving of the sheer justice of a union, while simultaneously holding (at least for a moment) the notion that there is no such thing as a "right" to a job. You can't do it.
A job is created when some industrious soul (who has likely already worked himself silly) conceives of a valuable task that is simply too much for him to do alone. He makes an agreement with someone to exchange value for value, possibly you.
How will a union protect you when the company goes under? Or when the project ends? How will it protect you when the most skilled workers take their ball(s) home? Or when the guy at the top realizes he's stuck with a bunch of losers and closes up shop?
Unions are like the Spanish Armada. They cannot compete with guys like me, who whip around in our tiny boats.
This isn't about insulting those who love unions. It's about indicting a really bad idea. You die-hard socialists go ahead and join the union. I wish you the best of luck. I really do. But get ready to say good-bye to the best and brightest, those benevolent and willing mentors who until now have gladly shown you the ropes. They'll be on to greener pastures, because you've just tried to chain their wallet to the dumbest guy on the staff. The company (or project) that they go to may just eat yours for lunch.
Quit whining about how you're treated: leave!
Quit whining about cube hell: leave!
Quit whining about your wages: learn!
You can do it yourself. Anything. Although you may need to hire someone. Imagine if they wouldn't let you stop paying them when you wanted to end the project. Imagine that they got some thug (say, a fed?) to promise bad things would happen to you if you refused. Imagine that they demanded you pay their useless pal, Wayne, to "help". Oh, it goes on....
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that'll foster objectivity.
-B...
I am a shareholder and I received no opportunity to vote on this. What good is a politician on the board? We barely got any use out of Larry Ellison! Now we'll have another lazy has-been sucking at Apple's teat. Instead, why not hire someone who's been relentlessly successful at what they do?
Apple: please pull your head out and undo this monstrous distraction. Focus! Stick to hiring great minds to make great systems. Jeez, this is worse than making Sinbad an Apple Fellow. Why on Earth are you polarizing and dividing your market when you need more than ever to unify and extend it!?
I am neither a conservative nor a liberal (nor a theist for that matter). This would be just as stupid if GW, or any Libertarian candidate had been tapped. Businessmen should run businesses. They're good at it. Politicians don't produce value. They siphon it.
This is a BAD sign. This means Apple has truly given up the integrity of economic entrepreneurship and is going down the dark path of political entrepreneurship. I have never doubted Apple before, through the darkest days. Now almost all my hope is lost. And they've done it themselves.
I assure you that I will be using my shares to oppose this. And I'll encourage all fellow shareholders to join me in ousting this non-entity from Apple's bridge.
-B...
I like the "insightful" moderation.
-B...
If you define a "rational person" as one who *tends* to make rational decisions, then I agree with you. But the danger isn't in the persuader's charisma, it's in his/her irrationality. In fact, that goofy Heaven's Gate leader was practically anti-charismatic by most accounts.
But there is another level to this. A person who commits to a policy of Reason in all matters, inward and outward, is essentially "disabling root access" to such charismatic nut-cases (while still enjoying, on occasion, what curious entertainment may be offered by the less insidious ones). The same person refuses, as a matter of pride, to remain in the "default setting": the animal hind-brain. To this person, sentience is a burden proudly borne.
The alternative is horrible. Devoid of rational faculty, Man is the least feasible animal on the planet -- a pushover for Nature.
Lovin' the Dave gag. You don't get a straight line like that every day! :-D
-B...
"Let it just be said that this Romantic tried to call her poor justifications objectivity for a good reason... to hide the lack of any internal coherency."
You're on. Name the lapses in coherency.
"At least half the people that "like" her simply don't understand her and buy the surface level rhetoric of libertarean objectivity."
You're right about that. I've met them. But you're a reasonable chap, right? So you won't call "objectivist" one who claims it for himself falsely, then, will you?
"She hated Libertarians,"
Yes, she did. Her political philosophy was grounded in her ethics and more deeply in her epistemology. It's evident that she believed serious political reform was untenable without a major philosophical evolution. How can a government protect rights they don't believe in? The Libertarians believe there are political solutions to philosophical problems (actually they don't acknowledge the problems are philosophical in nature -- it'd undermine their ringquest). And they don't care to ground their political notions in sound philosophy. As a result they're just shifting dogma like those of the other parties. The LP is well on its way to becoming yet another party (albeit a tiny one) awash in moral pragmatism.
That said, I've voted for their candidate on occasion, when I think it's the best of the available choices. And because the two major parties no longer offset each other as well as they have in the past.
""Objectivity" for her refers to the cold hard outlook, the ability to step over a homeless person, not in the scientific sense of subjecting one's hypothesis to doubt and test."
This is nonsense. A.) When does she step over a homeless person? In what book of hers? In what historical account? As I recall, in Atlas Shrugged, she has Dagny enjoy dinner with a tramp on her train. While it was not for charity, she was aware of the value of the meal to the tramp -- and she treated him respectfully. What would you have preferred? A kiss? Jeez. B.) In science, hypotheses are not "subjected" to "doubt", just to test. Courageous scientists enjoy subjecting hypotheses to the strictest tests because they marvel at those which remain standing. They maintain no affection toward false hypotheses. Because Rand shares none of her own personal introspection with you, you assume there'd been none? Read more. Objectivism isn't about spouting fiat and watching the world morph into spires of glass and steel. It's about determining and stating one's desire, finding out what it takes to accomplish it, and then doing it.
"Nietzsche is a much better way to spend your youthful rebellion against the herd."
Rebellions against herds are for the so-called non-conformists. They're blind to the irony that their ideals are determined by others -- that they've evaded the task of selecting their ideals. What happens when their "enemies" change their ideals? Do they lose the enemy or swap ideals? It's not about what you're against. It's about what you're *for*.
"She [...] was justifying why men that rise to the top of the capitalist world, like Ken Lay, are a better sort of people, period."
There are characters in Atlas Shrugged who "rose to the top" of their world who were most assuredly not capitalists. They were, in fact, villains. Perhaps you should consider reading the book.
"Rand is actually quite dangerous, I think."
Not really. She was short and out of shape. And now she's dead. But perhaps you mean to say that her ideas are quite dangerous. In the sense that they arm rational people against an irrational era, you're right.
"She represents an anti-rationalism which is always a key ingredient in fascism."
The "key ingredient" in fascism is the belief that the State is the creator/grantor of all rights. One would have to be anti-Reason to take this view. Please demonstrate how Ayn Rand supported this view. Take your time.
-B...
"Ken Lay is a supreme capitalist."
..."
... can be easily painted into logical corners."
..."
That remains to be seen. But because your antipathy to him is palpable, that statement looks a lot like an attempt at erecting a straw man. In a mixed economy two sorts of men may become successful. One depends upon the voluntary cooperation of his partners and customers. The other depends on deception and political connections. Naturally, men exist who can attribute their success to some combination of these two factors. But only the first is capitalist.
"Isn't capitalism supposed to lead to a perfect universe if everyone just is allowed to be as greedy as they want?"
Interesting premise. But false. The universe is already "perfect" so to speak. Man cannot change the laws of nature. A man can only change himself (how he rules himself) -- and defend himself. Your use of the word "allowed" reveals a lot, though. Precisely who is "booted and spurred" to decide who may not benefit himself and in what way? And why?
The student who called a student activities fee a form of taxation is no objectivist. Sounds more like what I'd call an "idiot". A little perspective: when purchasing an education, "fees" are part of the ongoing agreement between the student and the institution. There are many schools to choose from. Only governments tax. What a maroon.
However, it *is* true that information is not necessary to make a free decision. It won't be a very good decision -- a better word would be "whim" or "caprice" -- but it will be a free decision.
Information *is* necessary to make -- surprise -- an *informed* decision. Establishing a personal policy of gathering relevant information is a good idea. How much information does that take?
"In general, absolutists are dangerous
Interesting assertion. To whom? In my experience, the only dangerous people (to me) are irrational. If you disagree with that perhaps you can tell me how rational people can be dangerous to each other. I'll cede the point that -- when provoked -- rational people can (and should) be dangerous to irrational people.
"In general, absolutists
Relativists can escape any constraints. But they can't bring their principles with them.
"They refuse to bend a principle"
Principles stand or break. Anything that bends is a sorry excuse for a principle. What happens when principles break depends on whether the person is honest or dishonest. An honest person scuttles a lesser principle when he learns that it contradicts a greater principle. A dishonest person deludes himself into believing he actually had any principles.
"... to bend a principle leading to interesting contradictions
How does "bending" a "principle" produce anything other than contradictions?
-B...
"What a nightmare, a world full of objectivists."
I've met a few who call themselves objectivists because they've read a chapter or two and think they've confirmed their Nietzchean views. If you've met any of these people and thought "this is objectivism," I can understand your opinion. I trust that it is subject to your ongoing appraisal.
Atlas Shrugged presents neither dystopia nor utopia. Both notions are about the last irrevocable note a culture strikes. It shows the worst in men's spirits and the best -- two cultures. The last note of one isn't irrevocable and the note struck by the other isn't it's last.
A second post I agree with whole-heartedly. Thanks, "The Cat"!
-B...
Great choice of words. Amen.
-B...
Fact: Darwin is *BSD.
Fact: Thanks to OS X, it is now deployed more widely than GNU/Linux.
Fact: Your argument has been skewered.
I use OS X, OpenBSD, and PPC-based Linux systems. I love 'em all in their own way.
OS X ships with awk & perl. So you'll be right at home.
You can also get LaTeX and mutt. You can even compile them yourself, if that's how you like to spend your time.
-B...
In Terminal.app, you can also use Command- and Command- to cycle between windows. In Explorer, it's Command-~ and Command-Shift-~ for window cycling. I agree that it's a shame the application developers did not follow a standard. C'est la vie.
-B...
... Break free from the 'cycle'. A little more investigation into Mac OS X would have revealed this.
-B...
Have you seen what it costs to put RAM in that box? Or a hard drive? It's the computing equivalent of a tourist trap.
-B...
There are many dangers in this arena. Lots of knee jerk reactions are forming this moment, and getting ready to post. Before many of them do, I'll say this:
Inventors and the companies for whom they've done the inventing own the rights to their unique achievement and should be protected in these intellectual rights; and individuals own the rights to their own observations and may not be restricted in their right to announce these observations; and by extension: reporters and the organizations for whom they report own their observations about any freely available information and should be protected in their reporting about it.
So the only question that remains is about how information is obtained. If it is obtained in harmony with the terms set by the owner of the information, then there can be no legal issue. If this isn't the law it should be. If it is obtained against the just terms of the owner of the information, they have every right to sue for the breach.
Conversely, if an organization sues because they're unhappy that their information has received negative press, their case should be thrown out of court. And if they've received protection for something that isn't truly an innovation, that protection should be nullified.
It might be a frightening notion to some of you, but as nice as good laws, courts, and patents are, they don't do much good in the instances where corrupt legislators pass bad laws that grant "rights" to some at the very real expense of others, where judges and juries rule in favor of culprits, and where patent clerks grant frivolous patents.
It should be readily apparent from this that there is nothing wrong with the system itself, but the people. Better laws and regulations won't fix it -- never have, never will. But they'll help, by not being another cause of failure. Better courts can't exist without better judges and better juries. But they can't do anything about crappy laws and patents. And better patents can't exist without better patent clerks. If they're not following the law now, no better law will necessarily fix the situation.
Asking for better laws and better courts and patents is just a way of asking someone else to make it all better so you can go back to playing Quake and fighting for first post. It won't work. But it'll make you feel very self-righteous and done with your citizenship for the day. If that's all you want, you're not really relevant to to the solution. But you make a fine road block.
Even worse, taking a shortcut, picking the easiest route and saying something like "patents suck, screw the inventors", or "the press should be free to report anything it wants, even if they stole the information", or "companies should be able to do and say whatever they want to protect their livelihood", or even "freedom sucks, screw the press" (this is an international forum after all) will only win small-minded converts and make it more difficult for Reason to prevail. The motivation of (and appropriate judgment for) those who know this and do it anyway should be clear.
The only hope available to you is to use the best tool evolution has afforded you: think. Really consider the issues. Formulate rational concepts about them. Discuss them. Revise these concepts whenever better reasoning is heard. Then advocate your reasoning. This is the most important political activity. Summon the courage to do it even when horribly outnumbered, and especially when those around you don't even realize they're propagating some popular but false bromide. Next: serve on any jury you can be part of. Use your wisdom there to quell the herd mentality, and see that justice is done. If you have it in you to fight such battles, and know how to do it without sacrificing your integrity: run for office. Last (in democratic republics): vote. In countries that are not democratic republics (i.e. you have the right and means to participate and the real workings of the government are codified in law): leave. They're only benefitting from your presence at your expense. Life is better where men and women are free to converse, and to own the fruits of their labors -- both the manual and intellectual kinds.
It won't happen overnight. And it may not happen in our lifetimes. But life and liberty are worth having and happiness is worth pursuing. Don't you agree?
-B...
Go out there and get yourself some DSL customers.
-B...
I have long been a fan of Excel on the Macintosh -- since its earliest days, in fact. I miss the sort of cooperative tone the future held for us all in those days.
In your view, how can Microsoft and *nix/xBSD communities work together to make the brightest future for all of us?
-B...
How? I've been trying to do this for some time now. Please email me!
-B...
So, by your logic, we should forfeit that freedom now so we can preserve it?
-B...
When native FireWire drives (currently vapor) arrive, I hope you'll reassess. As for now, FireWire isn't the bottleneck. It's the conversion from IDE to FW. -B...
Fibre Channel and FireWire are entirely different things with no relation whatsoever. Apple has nothing to do with Fibre Channel. -B...
Shouldn't they enjoy the same rights to speak on the matter to whomever they wish? Where does all this sentiment toward implied prior restraint come from? Why should those who operate the company be bound by different rules? -B...
Let me get this straight. Some of you are willing to tie up your nuts in an NDA to keep using spaghetti code just because it's GPL (or because "everybody" else is using it)? Isn't this the same crowd who jumped the Windows ship for Linux?
Why are so many of you so desperately clinging to something so flawed when something so obviously superior can make your lives easier? Which do you value more: the GPL or your own happiness? Jeez, some of you remind me of the People's Front of Judea Suicide Squad (or was that the Judean People's Front?).
At least take a look at djbdns. Think about these questions as you do. How the hell can you crack it? What of value does the license actually prevent you from doing; and of how much value is that really? Why would a multi-million dollar organization use BIND instead? What love should they have for the GPL? Why would any BIND administrator get to keep his job after getting cracked, when he could have been using djbdns? Why would BIND improve if it didn't face the threat of extinction for its sins? How many assholes are among your favorite artists? Scientists? Businessmen? Why have you not thrown out their work with their party invitation?
Get your head out of your ass and choose something that actually does what it's supposed to do, without holes!
-B...
I love the quality of thought that has gone into the technical aspects of this problem. But the base assumption that this must be accomplished with "public" money (loot) is troublesome to me.
Why not let me keep my money, instead of swiping it for some official state-sanctioned crusade to Mars? Why not let those who want to go polish that rock go and do it with their own damn money? If they can do it, more power to 'em.
Without progressive taxes it wouldn't be as hard to get to Gates' and Ellison's level of wealth. Imagine actually keeping the value you create! And they're probably just at ground floor of the amount of wealth required to mount a project this ambitious. Imagine what they and other men like them could accomplish without Lilliputian tripwires. How can a bureaucracy compete with an equivalently-provisioned passionate individual in the pursuit of a productive goal?
Some are already laying the groundwork. First one to live on mars for a year and come back alive owns it. It's the Homestead Act for Mars!
-B...
I have been freelancing for over 11 years. I complete the project and leave. Every time. I come back if they have another. And they usually call.
You don't need a job. You merely need to present interested parties with your attractive skills. If you don't have them, get them. Jeez, in the early, lean days I was even a secretary! The most iimportant skill is being able to make their job easier. Tell me that doesn't inspire the business equivalent of love!
Now try conceiving of the sheer justice of a union, while simultaneously holding (at least for a moment) the notion that there is no such thing as a "right" to a job. You can't do it.
A job is created when some industrious soul (who has likely already worked himself silly) conceives of a valuable task that is simply too much for him to do alone. He makes an agreement with someone to exchange value for value, possibly you.
How will a union protect you when the company goes under? Or when the project ends? How will it protect you when the most skilled workers take their ball(s) home? Or when the guy at the top realizes he's stuck with a bunch of losers and closes up shop?
Unions are like the Spanish Armada. They cannot compete with guys like me, who whip around in our tiny boats.
This isn't about insulting those who love unions. It's about indicting a really bad idea. You die-hard socialists go ahead and join the union. I wish you the best of luck. I really do. But get ready to say good-bye to the best and brightest, those benevolent and willing mentors who until now have gladly shown you the ropes. They'll be on to greener pastures, because you've just tried to chain their wallet to the dumbest guy on the staff. The company (or project) that they go to may just eat yours for lunch.
Quit whining about how you're treated: leave!
Quit whining about cube hell: leave!
Quit whining about your wages: learn!
You can do it yourself. Anything. Although you may need to hire someone. Imagine if they wouldn't let you stop paying them when you wanted to end the project. Imagine that they got some thug (say, a fed?) to promise bad things would happen to you if you refused. Imagine that they demanded you pay their useless pal, Wayne, to "help". Oh, it goes on....
-B...