You've got a good point there... And have brought up another dilemma. Intellectual property right now relates only to nontangible goods; what happens when protecting the IP behind tangibles becomes more difficult in the future? Counterfeit goods have always been a problem, but what happens when anyone can make them?
Good point. And recycling as it is done now only goes so far. Incineration puts the Carbon Dioxide back in the atmosphere.
So... Can you think of a way to put trash that isn't normally recyclable to use, that would keep its value as a carbon sink? Landfill works, but isn't especially efficient... Got any more bright ideas?
I'm sorry... What's this from?
on
Fishing for Ideas
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
I've seen this before, but never got the reference... I'd assume this was indirectly related to Captain Picard's Borgian transformation...
I think you've very clearly illustrated part of the problem. You say that I wish to redefine the term "anarchism". I suppose you're right, in that I disagree with the way Mencken defined the term. By its derivation, "an-archy" simply means "no government", or "ungoverned". It should not be defined the same as "anti-hierarchism". There is a distinct need for a term describing the entire class of government-free social systems, including anarchocapitalism, anarchosyndicalism, and classical anarchy. The logical term is simply "anarchy" -- but Mencken's definition has contaminated the use of that term for the purpose, since to some people, calling a governmental system "anarchic" would reflect on the classic definition.
So... Should we formally redefine the term "anarchy"? Should we invent a new term? Something ought to be done because this conflict is interfering with rational discourse.
I think your grasp of history has been somewhat romanticized. Monarchal and totalitarian governments have never sought to attain a common standard of living; they benefited the privileged classes and treated the rest as serfs. The only reason they protected the serfs was to not hinder the collection of tax monies and to keep them complacent. There have been "enlightened" kings and despots who apparently worked for the benefit of the country and people, but there were the exception rather than the rule.
Democratic governments weren't formed to establish a "common" standard of living, though they've usually been corrupted to do so. Collectivist ones were indeed founded on that principle. Both types of governments have been proven by history to indeed create a common -- and low -- standard of living -- save for those few who got to actually run the government.
As for not "leeching" -- On the one hand, you're worried about the rich getting stolen from, but on the other hand, you don't want to let them take care of their own security. You're giving with one hand, and taking with the other -- without the built-in protections of the free market keeping prices from going through the roof or services from going to hell. And there's no way to practice free market security as it is now; the government would regulate you into oblivion if you tried to run a private security company to compete with the police.
As for charities -- yes, the world still has problems, despite their existence. Despite the existence of "benevolent" government, too. But charities operate more efficiently. I can also withhold my money from an ineffective charity and give it to an alternate, which I can't do with a government agency.
Anyway, we've strayed a LONG way from the original topic, of terminology having been corrupted by the deliberate misdefining of adjectives. Let's put this thread to rest and resurrect it somewhere more germane.
Okay, we've gone way off topic here, but I can't help responding to this one.
No, no, NO. The purpose of a society is NOT to provide a maximum level of comfort for the greatest amount of people. That may be one of the yardsticks used to measure a society, but it isn't the PURPOSE. The purpose is to give people a structure within which they can interact and resolve conflicts. That's all.
You may think it's okay to tax people's income in exchange for services they may not need or want, or take their property by eminent domain in order to maximize everyone's comfort. You may think that in order for everyone to live happily it's okay to leech off the most productive members of your society. I'm afraid I think you're absolutely wrong.
As for the "libertarian dream world of brutality and inhumanity" -- I say that the Zero-Aggression Principle trumps your brutality claim, and that state-sponsored "humanity" is cold-hearted at best and ultimately ineffective. If people are naturally inhumane, then why are charities some of the biggest businesses in the US?
Do YOU have a 24 hour government guard on your property? Heck, I don't. I have a monitored burglar alarm, and if it goes off, the monitoring company calls the cops.
So let's say there weren't any cops. Fine. I take the cash I'd otherwise have taxed out of me to pay for the police, and hire a security company to respond instead. Problem solved.
Does this make the security company a government? No; it's a voluntary relationship between myself and that company. If I don't like their service I can hire their competitors down the road. With a government I have to put up with whatever quality service they offer and pay whatever they demand.
As for the dot-com bust... Sure, the government REALLY helped there. After all those people got swindled, they held hearings and commissions and passed new laws -- that will do absolutely nothing to stop future swindles from happening.
Let me ask you something -- when you invest money somewhere, do you depend on the government to be sure you won't be swindled? If there were no government to protect you from swindlers wouldn't you be a hell of a lot more careful where you put your money?
Maybe if people didn't have government to lean on they wouldn't be so stupid.
Well, first off, I disagree with your categorizing (modern) libertarianism as "right wing". Even the party members don't (usually) fit under that category. Some libertarian positions agree with the left, some the right, and some send both sides screaming and running away. The Nolan chart theory gives some insight into the libertarians' inability to be categorized; check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz (and yes, the test is kinda biased and nowhere near complete, but it does give the theory).
I'd also have to take issue with your last statement, "Anarchism is diametrically opposed to capitalism first and foremost." CLASSICAL anarchism is, definitely. It is my belief, however, that the lack of government does not necessarily lead to the socializing of the means of capital, nor that it would be desirable.
As a libertarian I've become well-acquainted with the "hijacking" of terminology -- to the point of which it becomes exceedingly difficult to discuss some subjects because the people discussing it may not be talking about the same thing...
One example of this is the term "liberal". Once upon a time this had a very different meaning, and "classical liberalism", while on some issues resembles modern liberalism, is very different on many others. I doubt someone like Tom Paine would agree with much of what today's Democratic party supports.
Another example is "anarchy". To the Republicans, it's equated with chaos and a lack of any form of control, though in actuality it's meant to describe a social system that relies on self-control. To the socialists, it could only mean "classical anarchy", or "anarchosocialism", a sort of communist utopia. Libertarians often support "anarchocapitalism", where people can own the means to production.
The term "libertarianism" has been similarly obscured in meaning. Socialists have attempted to claim it for their own in the past. Many people, including the leadership of the Libertarian party, consider it equivalent to minarchism, while other influential people seek to equate the term to a restriction against the initiation of force. Meanwhile, other organizations also wish to subsume the term.
all sorts of problems
on
Wireless VOIP?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I can see several problems with using 802.11b as a basis for a wireless microphone system, sufficient problems that I'd have to recommend you not attempt it, unless you really feel like tinkering.
First off, bandwidth may indeed be a problem, especially if you want high-fidelity results. A single mike recording at CD quality would require approximately 88K/s or 700 kilobits per second. 15 channels would over 10 megabits, assuming perfect efficiency -- which you wouldn't get with 802.11b without some fancy custom programming, so you'd need a set-up with at least 20 megabits of bandwidth. If you need to use these audio sources for professional mixing, the bitrate would double, to 40 megabits.
I'm aware of no commercial solution for a high-fidelity, low-power A/D converter for wireless microphone use. The ones I know about eat quite a bit of electricity and wouldn't be suitable for battery-powered applications. Building them would be difficult if you wanted to preserve fidelity.
You would further need to provide a small computer with each microphone and A/D converter, in order to feed that data onto the wireless channel. The task of coding for a single-chip processor or a small experimenter board would be difficult enough, but to keep electronic noise out of your audio circuit would be non-trivial. Powering it by battery would also cause problems.
Considering how jaded and uneducated most of the inhabitants of this planet have become, it has been decided that a single day of pranks is insufficient to commemorate the stupidity they can be capable of.
THEREFORE, the month of April is designated as National April Fool's month.
IN ADDITION, April 15th is designated as the National Ultimate Fool's Day. It is also the deadline for filing Federal Income Tax Returns. Please note that this is not a coincidence.
BitTorrent's transfers are distributed, but a central server is used, both to introduce clients with each other, and to track the performance of the network. Tracker bandwidth runs about 0.1% of the total aggregate sharing bandwidth. If the company were running the tracker, then yes, they certainly could track how many successful downloads were made.
You may have technical issues; the AVERAGE bandwidth not too long ago was running about 50K/s.
To get BitTorrent to function optimally, make sure ports 6881-6889 (can be reconfigured if you're running the full version and not the windows install) aren't blocked by a firewall.
Yeah, it's not quite on topic, but I figured someone should mention it...
As of this posting, 26 hours after it began being distributed via BitTorrent, 5400 people have received copies of the ISOs using that protocol, and over 11 terabytes of data have been transmitted over that torrent.
There are now also torrents available for the source and documentation ISOs. To download either set, please visit f.scarywater.net.
Well, all GnomeMeeting needs is a few good coders, and the free version can be forked. (And if you're interested, I suggest you grab 0.96.1 before it's withdrawn from the web site.)
For single-file transfers, yes. In fact, the SHA1 is what the torrent is indexed under on the tracker.
For transfers of entire directories, the torrent is indexed under an overall checksum. I am not certain individual SHA1 checksums are included for each file, but I suspect they are.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got a good point there... And have brought up another dilemma. Intellectual property right now relates only to nontangible goods; what happens when protecting the IP behind tangibles becomes more difficult in the future? Counterfeit goods have always been a problem, but what happens when anyone can make them?
Neal Stephenson tackled this problem in one of his books, too.
Good point. And recycling as it is done now only goes so far. Incineration puts the Carbon Dioxide back in the atmosphere.
So... Can you think of a way to put trash that isn't normally recyclable to use, that would keep its value as a carbon sink? Landfill works, but isn't especially efficient... Got any more bright ideas?
I've seen this before, but never got the reference... I'd assume this was indirectly related to Captain Picard's Borgian transformation...
And we'll sink with Californiaaa, when it falls into the seaaaaaaaaa...
See this comment.
As a matter of fact... Yes.
*laughs*
I think you've very clearly illustrated part of the problem. You say that I wish to redefine the term "anarchism". I suppose you're right, in that I disagree with the way Mencken defined the term. By its derivation, "an-archy" simply means "no government", or "ungoverned". It should not be defined the same as "anti-hierarchism". There is a distinct need for a term describing the entire class of government-free social systems, including anarchocapitalism, anarchosyndicalism, and classical anarchy. The logical term is simply "anarchy" -- but Mencken's definition has contaminated the use of that term for the purpose, since to some people, calling a governmental system "anarchic" would reflect on the classic definition.
So... Should we formally redefine the term "anarchy"? Should we invent a new term? Something ought to be done because this conflict is interfering with rational discourse.
I think your grasp of history has been somewhat romanticized. Monarchal and totalitarian governments have never sought to attain a common standard of living; they benefited the privileged classes and treated the rest as serfs. The only reason they protected the serfs was to not hinder the collection of tax monies and to keep them complacent. There have been "enlightened" kings and despots who apparently worked for the benefit of the country and people, but there were the exception rather than the rule.
Democratic governments weren't formed to establish a "common" standard of living, though they've usually been corrupted to do so. Collectivist ones were indeed founded on that principle. Both types of governments have been proven by history to indeed create a common -- and low -- standard of living -- save for those few who got to actually run the government.
As for not "leeching" -- On the one hand, you're worried about the rich getting stolen from, but on the other hand, you don't want to let them take care of their own security. You're giving with one hand, and taking with the other -- without the built-in protections of the free market keeping prices from going through the roof or services from going to hell. And there's no way to practice free market security as it is now; the government would regulate you into oblivion if you tried to run a private security company to compete with the police.
As for charities -- yes, the world still has problems, despite their existence. Despite the existence of "benevolent" government, too. But charities operate more efficiently. I can also withhold my money from an ineffective charity and give it to an alternate, which I can't do with a government agency.
Anyway, we've strayed a LONG way from the original topic, of terminology having been corrupted by the deliberate misdefining of adjectives. Let's put this thread to rest and resurrect it somewhere more germane.
Okay, we've gone way off topic here, but I can't help responding to this one.
No, no, NO. The purpose of a society is NOT to provide a maximum level of comfort for the greatest amount of people. That may be one of the yardsticks used to measure a society, but it isn't the PURPOSE. The purpose is to give people a structure within which they can interact and resolve conflicts. That's all.
You may think it's okay to tax people's income in exchange for services they may not need or want, or take their property by eminent domain in order to maximize everyone's comfort. You may think that in order for everyone to live happily it's okay to leech off the most productive members of your society. I'm afraid I think you're absolutely wrong.
As for the "libertarian dream world of brutality and inhumanity" -- I say that the Zero-Aggression Principle trumps your brutality claim, and that state-sponsored "humanity" is cold-hearted at best and ultimately ineffective. If people are naturally inhumane, then why are charities some of the biggest businesses in the US?
Do YOU have a 24 hour government guard on your property? Heck, I don't. I have a monitored burglar alarm, and if it goes off, the monitoring company calls the cops.
So let's say there weren't any cops. Fine. I take the cash I'd otherwise have taxed out of me to pay for the police, and hire a security company to respond instead. Problem solved.
Does this make the security company a government? No; it's a voluntary relationship between myself and that company. If I don't like their service I can hire their competitors down the road. With a government I have to put up with whatever quality service they offer and pay whatever they demand.
As for the dot-com bust... Sure, the government REALLY helped there. After all those people got swindled, they held hearings and commissions and passed new laws -- that will do absolutely nothing to stop future swindles from happening.
Let me ask you something -- when you invest money somewhere, do you depend on the government to be sure you won't be swindled? If there were no government to protect you from swindlers wouldn't you be a hell of a lot more careful where you put your money?
Maybe if people didn't have government to lean on they wouldn't be so stupid.
Was this company formed before or after the Budweiser "True" commercials?
Well, first off, I disagree with your categorizing (modern) libertarianism as "right wing". Even the party members don't (usually) fit under that category. Some libertarian positions agree with the left, some the right, and some send both sides screaming and running away. The Nolan chart theory gives some insight into the libertarians' inability to be categorized; check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz (and yes, the test is kinda biased and nowhere near complete, but it does give the theory).
I'd also have to take issue with your last statement, "Anarchism is diametrically opposed to capitalism first and foremost." CLASSICAL anarchism is, definitely. It is my belief, however, that the lack of government does not necessarily lead to the socializing of the means of capital, nor that it would be desirable.
As a libertarian I've become well-acquainted with the "hijacking" of terminology -- to the point of which it becomes exceedingly difficult to discuss some subjects because the people discussing it may not be talking about the same thing...
One example of this is the term "liberal". Once upon a time this had a very different meaning, and "classical liberalism", while on some issues resembles modern liberalism, is very different on many others. I doubt someone like Tom Paine would agree with much of what today's Democratic party supports.
Another example is "anarchy". To the Republicans, it's equated with chaos and a lack of any form of control, though in actuality it's meant to describe a social system that relies on self-control. To the socialists, it could only mean "classical anarchy", or "anarchosocialism", a sort of communist utopia. Libertarians often support "anarchocapitalism", where people can own the means to production.
The term "libertarianism" has been similarly obscured in meaning. Socialists have attempted to claim it for their own in the past. Many people, including the leadership of the Libertarian party, consider it equivalent to minarchism, while other influential people seek to equate the term to a restriction against the initiation of force. Meanwhile, other organizations also wish to subsume the term.
I can see several problems with using 802.11b as a basis for a wireless microphone system, sufficient problems that I'd have to recommend you not attempt it, unless you really feel like tinkering.
First off, bandwidth may indeed be a problem, especially if you want high-fidelity results. A single mike recording at CD quality would require approximately 88K/s or 700 kilobits per second. 15 channels would over 10 megabits, assuming perfect efficiency -- which you wouldn't get with 802.11b without some fancy custom programming, so you'd need a set-up with at least 20 megabits of bandwidth. If you need to use these audio sources for professional mixing, the bitrate would double, to 40 megabits.
I'm aware of no commercial solution for a high-fidelity, low-power A/D converter for wireless microphone use. The ones I know about eat quite a bit of electricity and wouldn't be suitable for battery-powered applications. Building them would be difficult if you wanted to preserve fidelity.
You would further need to provide a small computer with each microphone and A/D converter, in order to feed that data onto the wireless channel. The task of coding for a single-chip processor or a small experimenter board would be difficult enough, but to keep electronic noise out of your audio circuit would be non-trivial. Powering it by battery would also cause problems.
Considering how jaded and uneducated most of the inhabitants of this planet have become, it has been decided that a single day of pranks is insufficient to commemorate the stupidity they can be capable of.
THEREFORE, the month of April is designated as National April Fool's month.
IN ADDITION, April 15th is designated as the National Ultimate Fool's Day. It is also the deadline for filing Federal Income Tax Returns. Please note that this is not a coincidence.
When Taco offers to FILTER this stuff for subscribers, the cash will be pouring in in DROVES...
BitTorrent's transfers are distributed, but a central server is used, both to introduce clients with each other, and to track the performance of the network. Tracker bandwidth runs about 0.1% of the total aggregate sharing bandwidth. If the company were running the tracker, then yes, they certainly could track how many successful downloads were made.
You may have technical issues; the AVERAGE bandwidth not too long ago was running about 50K/s.
To get BitTorrent to function optimally, make sure ports 6881-6889 (can be reconfigured if you're running the full version and not the windows install) aren't blocked by a firewall.
Yeah, it's not quite on topic, but I figured someone should mention it...
As of this posting, 26 hours after it began being distributed via BitTorrent, 5400 people have received copies of the ISOs using that protocol, and over 11 terabytes of data have been transmitted over that torrent.
There are now also torrents available for the source and documentation ISOs. To download either set, please visit f.scarywater.net.
Well, all GnomeMeeting needs is a few good coders, and the free version can be forked. (And if you're interested, I suggest you grab 0.96.1 before it's withdrawn from the web site.)
Eureka!
Now we know why they run power lines alongside every road -- so they can soak up the free energy caused by cars driving alongside them!
that author Stephen King died in a car accident?
For single-file transfers, yes. In fact, the SHA1 is what the torrent is indexed under on the tracker.
For transfers of entire directories, the torrent is indexed under an overall checksum. I am not certain individual SHA1 checksums are included for each file, but I suspect they are.
We finally get the government to raise the speed limits on highways, so what do they do? Put a speed limit on light! Arrgh!
You just can't win.
Cached in my journal