Even though we all know that Bob (or Mr. Abooey to the rest of the trolls) is completely full of shit, he does bring up an interesting point.
The fact is, it would take one hell of a devestating event to cause complete destruction of ALL computers and computer systems. We have government offices/shelters all over the world built deep, deep underground to save the 'important' people in the event of nuclear attack. I would think there would also be at least a few computers present in these shelters. Nobody can imagine living without computers nowadays. And if the end times come, and humanity is wiped out, we want to make sure that the important government officials can still create massive amounts of paperwork in their locked-away shelters. What better way than with computers?
Take that, and the fact that we have a (at least semi) permanent space-station which is probably filled with computer equipment, both high-grade industrial type stuff and commodity PC hardware (don't a lot of astronauts have laptops with them?), anything short of a full-on Earth destroying event (and one that destroys the space station with it) would probably not be able to completely wipe out all computers.
But, if we are talking theoretical, I think it would be a good thing if we had to go back to the beginning. It might make people a little more concious of the fact that there is life outside of computers. Granted, we would all be too busy hunting and fishing to worry about recreating our computers. If all electronics were wiped out, there would be no electricity (aren't all power plants computer controlled?), no cars (how many cars don't have computers in them now?), no TV (OH THE HUMANITY!), no radio, and basically we would be thrust back into a sort of dark ages. The ones to survive would be the ones that can manage to hunt and gather on their own. There would be no massive transports, there would be no infrastructure for government to 'sieze control' in a situation like that. It would be, um, interesting to say the least. And it would serve to clean up the current gene pool a bit.
But, what sort of event would it take to selectively remove all electronics completely from the Earth in such a way that there would be no way to quickly recreate them? I'm having real problems coming up with a possible scenario that doesn't include extinction of all life, at least all human life.
Re:This could be bad news for manned space travel.
on
Life On Mars: ALH84001
·
· Score: 1
Or perhaps try to fit ourselves into other planets/bodies in space. At some point we will have that ability. I'm not saying we should sit idly by until such a time, we should be trying to get 'out there' and colonize something, the moon perhaps as a starting point? But the concept that we need to warp everything we touch to fit our current needs seems a little over-reaching to me.
The easiest way I can think to describe it comes from the Dan Simmons novels in the Hyperion/Endymion series. The 'common' man changed planets to fit themselves, killing native species without thought, destroying native life-forms where ever they were found. The 'Ousters' were seen as barbarians by the common man, but they changed themselves to fit into the environments that they encountered. Some were actually capable of living in deep space for extended periods of time. I realize it's sci-fi, but the ideas behind it are already in development. Genetic engineering, robotic implants, and other body modifying technology is already feasable in the foreseeable future. Why not take it to that next logical step?
And for those that say this would remove our humanity, I would ask if that matters. I would want to see the memories of our time up to now remembered for a long time to come. Who cares if that means we have to change our bodies a little to make that happen? I certainly don't.
Re:This could be bad news for manned space travel.
on
Life On Mars: ALH84001
·
· Score: 1
The assumption that we are the most important species to ever exist is a dangerous one at best, and a downright stupid one at worst. ---Me
Re:This could be bad news for manned space travel.
on
Life On Mars: ALH84001
·
· Score: 1
While a share a small bit of concern, the one thing we can be completely confident in is that the stupidity of humanity will prevail. No life on Mars? Well, we have no business being there. What there is life? Quick, we've got to get our asses there so we can destroy it, tear it apart, study it, and make our mark. Don't let it survive unchanged! Don't let it exist as is!
Not to be alarmist, but humanity could deal with a little more forethought on subjects like this. Unfortunately, we should realize that no amount of 'realistic' discussion is going to cause the collective mind of society to consider reality in any way shape or form. If it's new, and it exists, we must have, destroy and maim it. It's the way we work.
The Sci-Fi writers that say humanity is the cockroach of the universe are wrong. Cockroaches aren't nearly as destructive as we are.
I believe you missed the point. We were discussing getting away from the "as we know it" part of the phrase, "life as we know it". What if they are completely different from us. Would the lack of a highly sulfurous atmosphere mean that there was no life here? Maybe, re-read the post I repsponded to, then re-read my post again. Seems your post was made totally counter to the topic at hand.
I believe this discussion has been had here before, but:,
It is abundantly obvious that the 'design' of the human body, or even some of the 'lesser' creatures is extremely wasteful. So, if we were designed (and that is one mighty gargantuan if, we were designed by an imbecile that had absolutely no idea what the hell they were doing.
Oh, and your attempt at saying that because we don't understand means it must be a higher intelligence is really ridiculous. That is religious posturing, nothing more. I don't understand how the hell anyone could stomach Britney Spears, does that mean she was created by a HIGHER intelligence? Very doubtful. But, go ahead and live with your delusions. That's probably easier than questioning the things around you.
Questions are hard, I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.
In the same token, isn't it arrogant to presume that life developed in a different way from life on Earth would be presumptious enough to assume that they should be looking to life similar/equal to their own. The chances are the other life forms, especially life forms advanced enough to find/look at Earth in detail from a great distance away (by travel or by instruments), would be a little more open-minded than what twentieth-twenty-first century man is. I would hope that by the time we are able to reach far enough away to go look at other planets in detail that we would have evolved past the "what we know is all that can be" garbage that is believed today.
But what do I know, I'm just an idiotic man, a product of the society I bash. That kind of sucks too.;-)
Did anyone else see the humor in Jon Katz complaining that someone's writing was too dry because it included content that moved forward quickly? Of course Jon would see that as dry, it is the polar opposite of his writing style, pointless drivel (which is all about the human element that he complains is missing in this book) that wanders on and on and never really seems to lead anywhere.
My other question would be that he claims the Microsoft era is completely over. When did this happen? It seems that companies using open-source are being told every day that they are basing their business on flimsy and terrible practices that threaten the very existence of humanity. I realize that this isn't a good sign for Microsoft, but I also am not stupid enough to claim that Microsoft is dead. They have a tendency to come through things that seem pretty bleak, and come out on the other end wiping blood from their mouths and proclaiming that they have destroyed another demonic monster that stands in the way of American Life. People still swallow everything out of Redmond as a general rule. Now, Slashdotters are the exception because we are aware of some of the back-scenes stuff going on, but don't think for a minute that Microsoft is dead and gone.
Sorry, but speaking in the past tense of someone or something that is definitely very much alive and well just kind of irks me. MS may be going down, but they may not be. And only time can truly tell.
Re:Another case of too little, too late?
on
ESR On XML-RPC
·
· Score: 1
...but why use XML-RPC when SOAP exists and has more market noise behind it?
Do you base all of your decisions on "market noise"? I mean, I understand wanting to support something that is likely to last, but jumping on the latest craze in the hopes that it will take off is not necissarily the best way to promote yourself in the software world.
Granted, I'll give you that Java was once a huge risk, just as many other 'technologies' before and since, but the idea that the person with the biggest wallet to hand over to marketing is right just seems ludicrous.
Marketing might does not make right. Sad that it might win in the end, but technology and marketing are usually at odds. Chances are real good that neither SOAP nor XML-RPC will end up being the be-all/end-all that they are supposed to be and each will simply become another tool to use in appropriate situations. Just be careful of the marketing noise, there have been a number of people that have gotten locked up when the heard a little too much marketing noise and started believing it.
They're not all bad, and there is no conspiracy. The bad teachers got that way by themselves, not through late-night school board meetings.
I didn't say they are all bad, but the majority are. And likely they don't appear to be from outside of the classroom they teach in. But how often do they go out of their way to impress the "right" kids by picking on the "wrong" kids?
Sorry if I disagree with you. But seeing as how I only met about three to four teachers through my entire 'carreer' as a student that had any concern at all for the kids in their care, I really have a hard time buying that the majority of teachers are good. Maybe it's just where I grew up, maybe it's just the hard-assed teachers where I grew up, or maybe I just wasn't 'cool' enough to be thought of as a promising student.
I'm not some kid becrying his current fate either. I have plenty of years between me and my memories of school. I just don't see the point in defending people that made my life at that time a living hell. All because I refused to dress in preppy clothes and I didn't go get drunk with the jocks every weekend. I never understood the point, and I still don't. I just hope that my kids don't suffer through the same idiotic teaching principles that I had to.
Sorry that I'm concerned about bad teachers. I'm not going to pat someone on the back when they would do everything possible to kick me in the crotch. It just seems pointless to congradulate someone on destroying kids self-esteem.
It's the overprescription that was the focus of my comment. The fact that people feel they can rid the world of all problems if they just find the right pill is enough to make me vomit, and kids that wear the wrong clothes or don't hang with the right crowd are often thrown onto one drug or another because they are "different" in the hopes that it will normalize them.
I was lucky, my parents allowed me to decide whether I wanted to take the drugs I was told would "help" me or not. I never did. A pill won't 'cure' me of my differentness. For those that actually do have ADD, I apologize. My comment was not aimed at you. My comment was aimed at the kids the don't hang with the 'in' crowd and are told if they just take the right pill all of their problems will go away.
People participating in a conspiracy don't always have to be aware of it.
I would not doubt for a moment that your "real people" are the same sort of people that think anyone wearing a black t-shirt is a bad person, or that anyone that doesn't talk about Britney Spears has some deep social problems. At least, that was the way teachers were in my day (long before Britney Spears, maybe New Kids On The Block, a little before). If you are not "normal" you are to be punished for it. If not through actual 'official' punishment, then through gentle prodding and poking and/or being ignored when you ask for something.
Teachers have an important job, and there are some that have a little common sense, and some that even allow themselves to use it on the job. But those are rare. The fact is that in any job you eventually do one of two things: you either become one of "them", or you leave and look for work elsewhere. Since a teacher's job has become about teaching children to conform, they either teach children to conform, or they lose their job. It's a sad reality, but it is reality. I lived through it (maybe four teachers all the way from kindergarten up to high-school didn't fit the 'ostrasize the outcasts' mold), and countless others live through it every day. It's a result of society itself as much as it is of government. People don't care enough to get up in arms about it, just like they don't care enough to get up in arms when the government is led around by the business sector. It just isn't appealing to think that we are being opressed. And if it isn't appealing, then why do we want to think about it?
You ever seen the movie or read the book "Dead Poet's Society"?
That's probably the best "popular" exploration of the schools stated purpose and the schools real purpose and how totally at odds the two things really are. The fact is that schools are about establishing the heirarchy that you are supposed to cling to for the rest of your life. It is about teaching conformance, and stifling creativity. While the stated purpose may be different, and the occasional teacher may misconstrue what they are supposed to be doing (as in the above mentioned work of fiction), never kid yourself into believing that school is about teaching our younger generations how to succeed and survive on their own. It is all about teaching them how to "fit in", to the point of destroying any kid that just doesn't quite fit the parameters that are considered "normal".
I wonder how many creative geniuses are dieing behind a Ritalin (sp?) haze. Being different shouldn't be a crime, but schools have taught for generations that it is. So, if you are different, you are outcast, or destroyed before you are old enough to have any permanently damaging effects on the other people around you. Suicides of teenagers, while tragic, are probably thought of as the greatest benefit to society by school administrators. (I can just see some of those bastard principles saying, "Yes, got rid of another wierdo!")
Not to say that all school administrators are inherently evil. They are taught to be politically correct and conformant to the norm. And they are taught to make sure the kids in their care are forced to do the same, to the point of pain, and sometimes even death.
Don't think too much, or, pretend to do what they say, then go home and use your brain (some of us learn that early enough to prevent total brain-decay before we hit high-school). They may hate that you are using it in 'unapproved' ways, but what can they do about it? Unless they see 'weirdness' (dressing in black was enough to qualify in my day), then they probably won't care. Blend in and you're fine. It's angering, but so is the rest of life.
Do you need a towel after that session of masturbation?
It never ceases to amaze me how people that have absolutely no perception of what "art" actually stands for will rant on and on about how they have created the most beautiful art of all time while putting down anything that truly is art.
And so you don't get me wrong, art is not about classical training (and ignore the AC idiot that said that to you). Art is not about stroking your damn ego. Art is about doing something that evokes a huge overwhelming emotional response in the audience that hears, sees or otherwise senses your art. If it doesn't create an emotional response (and I know very, very few people that get an emotional response from an e-commerce site, save for you yourself), then it probably isn't really art. It may be attempted art, but much like atttempted murder is more lightly sentenced than actual murder, the creator suffers far less for attempting to create art than he or she does when creating actual art. It takes suffering, tears, sweat and sometimes even blood to create great art. And all of those things will be apparent to the 'casual' observer that is witness to that art. All this babbling about all programming being art is silly. Hell, not even all art is art. Just because someone put a guitar or a paint brush in your hand, that doesn't mean you are an artists. Just because you happen to be able to afford the computer and the education to program that doesn't mean you are an artist.
No offence meant, but stroking your own ego that hard in public is usually grounds for arrest (public lewdity is breaking the law). I'm not claiming I'm much of an artists now, but I've written songs that have brought people to tears in the past. I don't suffer much anymore, and that is reflected in the work I attempt to label art, but it doesn't feel like art.
On the off-chance that you are one of those people that has given up everything for your programming, it isn't just the suffering that matters. Show me your site, if I feel something because of it, then I will gladly retract my entire statement and bow down to your superior artistic talents. Otherwise, hush. And please, see someone about that ego problem.
I play guitar and I do a bit of programming/web design. When I'm on stage raging out a solo, every woman in the house is ready to jump at me. But every damn one of them that I've given a chance has gotten this glazed look when they start talking to me. I guess I gotta work on that;-).
Actually, I'm a very happily married man. My wife happens to glaze over when I start talking about guitars and music. Go figure.
I really liked that comment. It's like Napster is the most vile and evil thing that has ever existed (never mind the million other ways/places to get MP3s).
But the thing I really like is the reason they give for not providing a downloadable source of music. They keep harping on the idea that they cannot be 'guaranteed' compensation if someone can download music. To me, this is just silly. Is there any guarantee when you purchase a CD to the record company that you won't/can't copy that CD? Hell no! Was there a guarantee that you couldn't copy the music off of vinyl? No. What's the big deal? I know that copying is easier, but if the RIAA would just loosen up a little bit, realize the marketing potential and sell music at a decent price, the pirating business wouldn't matter. People are basically honest. If they were treated fairly they won't be copying a million copies of MP3s and transfering them all over the place. But, they are charging up to $20 for a CD that cost them a few pennies to manufacture, and compensating the artist between $.30 and $1.00 per sale (OK, in some cases it has been negotiated above that, but that's a rarity.) People say that artists deserve to be compensated for record sales, but they aren't getting it through the RIAA member companies.
I don't use napster myself. I copy every CD that I own into MP3 format so that I can carry it around in my laptop and listen to it easily on my desktop, but as far as I know everything I do with it should fall under fair use. I know there is talk that the RIAA wants a person to purchase a seperate CD for each place they listen to it (as in licensing schemes on computers), but they can piss off on that one. If they charged less, I might consider it.
I don't think legislation is going to fix this, however they do have the right idea. I don't think that congress should be able to set record prices either, but at least they are acknowledging that the prices right now are ridiculous, and that something needs to be done to adress the online download potential. I would say, even though I don't like the idea of it being based on new governmental regulations, they are pushing for the right things. They would be creating a competition based market in this realm where the company that came up with the easiest/best distrobution method and priced things the best would come out on top, ending the RIAA monopoly on big-name record sales. Funny how government regulation on one hand can turn your stomach, but on the other hand seem so right. I don't know how to feel about this one.
Not being a smart-ass, this is serious. I know damn good and well that I'm addicted to music, just not others music. If I don't play guitar for about a month I get really, really unpleasant to be around. Hell, sometimes I get that way before I can get home and crank up.
So, to me, music is a need. Not in this sense (needing to hear other's new music), but in the sense that I must play and create music. My fear with the fallout of the Napster crap is that the RIAA will somehow manage to promote the idea of music as intellectual property to the point where playing my guitar will mean I need to pay them for that privelege. I would hate to have to go on an RIAA killing spree, but I would sooner do that than pay those assholes for the right to create.
Funny, this kind of falls in line with the Microsoft article earlier about how MS wants Open Source Software outlawed. A few years ago it would have been absurd to think that the process of creation could be put under regulations, but now it seems to just be a matter of time. If you don't have the moola, you shouldn't have the right to create. Or at least that's what the big businesses think. And with the government firmly in the pockets of the rich, they will eventually swing that hammer down.
Yes, I realize it sounds conspiratorial, but I just get this feeling that opression is going to be a pleasant thought compared to the state the US is eventually going to find itself in. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I am not.
I was laughing along with you until I started to think about how few people around me have even half a clue. When you realize how truly brain-dead most people are, and how they seem to like being brain-dead, well, it isn't nearly so funny.
Some people swallow every word out of corporations like Microsoft because, "if they made that much money they must be really smart." They never consider that there are some things that Microsoft has done that weren't so smart, or that a lot of Microsoft's early success (which has been built on to this day) could be attributed to being in the right place at the right time. And god forbid that anyone question anything they hear out of corporate America!
Sorry, I need to lay off the caffiene. This pisses me off, and my thoughts are a little too scattered to come up with a totally coherent argument. But I really, really look for this to be a big push over the next few years from the big boys of the software only business. The companies that are hardware oriented in some way may come to embrace open-source as a money saving device, and may be some of our best-friends in fighting this type of non-sense (look at Apple and IBM at the moment). The real question is, just how much money, effort, and PR is going to be oriented on discrediting the open source and free software movements as a bunch of criminal and negligent idiots over the next few years? And, probably more importantly, just how much of it will be swallowed by the government officials in charge of the legal systems of the country?
They do pay a lot of money for PR, probably only paying more to lawyers, but the real problem lies in the fact that not everything you hear "From Microsoft" is directly filtered by the PR company. Seriously, if you look at the stupid, inconsistent, and just blantantly wrong propganda spewed forth by MS, it is usually from one of the executives that went shooting off his mouth at some point, whether it is Bill or Ballmer or one of the cronies. Then, for the next few months that will be the company line, until the next idiot opens his mouth at some dinner or other press-invaded conference. Then it will be time to make a huge about face and pretend that the thing they had held onto as sacred for the past few months was just bullshit, or never happened at all.
I just hate hearing this because MS has the money and power to actually get people to take this shit seriously. I know that I've heard plenty of high-dollar types talk about how 'geeks are ruining Linux by preventing corporations from steering it in the correct direction', does this now mean that these same uninformed types are going to be saying, 'it's time we completely outlaw open source software and make sure those damn geeks get put in their place once and for all'? I hope not, but never underestimate the power of stupidity in the rich, very rich, and generally ignorant assholes in power.
That's like saying that musicians without a recording contract shouldn't be allowed to play or think up new music.
Sh, quiet, you'll give the RIAA ideas and then I'll be out of a hobby again (not to mention that the confiscation of my approximately $25,000 in accumulated 'contraband' musical gear would probably throw me into a depression that I would never come out of).
Right now, when you buy a DVD you own it. But I am quickly seeing things shape up where, because it is digital content, the MPAA are going to say that by buying the DVD you have just purchased a license to view it and that you must abide by some type of EULA type contract (in which I am certain they will say playing on an 'unauthorized' player will be illegal and a breach of contract). Whether they can make that stick or not is an interesting debate, and one we won't see settled until the first case of DVD EULA contract breach goes through the courts.
Just thought I'd point that out. I agree with your sentiments, and that we should own things that we have purchased, but I'm sure the movie company would disagree with you.
[my wife goes out of her way to show me pictures of other women in scanty clothing, so what would I know?]
I don't know what you know, but what you should *do* is insist she is much more attractive than any of them:-)
Typically I will make some comment about how ridiculous the outfit looks. But the one slip up I've never made is that when she says she wishes she had a body like that, I have never, no matter how tempting, said, "so do I." I'm not as stupid as I appear.;-)
My wife and I have discussed many "what if" scenarios and came up with a simple test that I think any couple/person should be able to apply to this situation.
If you feel that you can tell your partner about what you are doing/contemplating doing and not expect repurcussions, then you probably aren't cheating.
If you feel you have to avoid telling your partner about what you are doing/contemplating then you are cheating, plain and simple. If not by your action, by your lack of faith in the relationship.
Of course, my wife goes out of her way to show me pictures of other women in scanty clothing, so what would I know? (Actually I think that's a sign of the trust she has in me, which is a good thing.)
Sorry, I should have specified, when I said portable radio I was talking boom-box style portables. Something that more than one person can listen to comfortably.
Well, I don't know about you, but a laptop is much smaller/lighter than most of those 'portable' radio thingies. And as far as the time consideration, I don't know what type of laptop you are using. When using mine for only MP3 playback I get about four hours on one battery. But that tends to shorten up if I'm doing major program compiles or something. But on my old beater, all it gets used for is MP3 playback (with a nice little tape adapter for use in the car). It's worked pretty good so far.
I agree that we need shock proof hard drives while they are running though. I would kill for a really, REALLY solid hard drive for portables. Even though mine has worked good so far, I haven't travelled any really rough roads with it powered up. I really doubt it would last long at all if I was off-roading with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though we all know that Bob (or Mr. Abooey to the rest of the trolls) is completely full of shit, he does bring up an interesting point.
The fact is, it would take one hell of a devestating event to cause complete destruction of ALL computers and computer systems. We have government offices/shelters all over the world built deep, deep underground to save the 'important' people in the event of nuclear attack. I would think there would also be at least a few computers present in these shelters. Nobody can imagine living without computers nowadays. And if the end times come, and humanity is wiped out, we want to make sure that the important government officials can still create massive amounts of paperwork in their locked-away shelters. What better way than with computers?
Take that, and the fact that we have a (at least semi) permanent space-station which is probably filled with computer equipment, both high-grade industrial type stuff and commodity PC hardware (don't a lot of astronauts have laptops with them?), anything short of a full-on Earth destroying event (and one that destroys the space station with it) would probably not be able to completely wipe out all computers.
But, if we are talking theoretical, I think it would be a good thing if we had to go back to the beginning. It might make people a little more concious of the fact that there is life outside of computers. Granted, we would all be too busy hunting and fishing to worry about recreating our computers. If all electronics were wiped out, there would be no electricity (aren't all power plants computer controlled?), no cars (how many cars don't have computers in them now?), no TV (OH THE HUMANITY!), no radio, and basically we would be thrust back into a sort of dark ages. The ones to survive would be the ones that can manage to hunt and gather on their own. There would be no massive transports, there would be no infrastructure for government to 'sieze control' in a situation like that. It would be, um, interesting to say the least. And it would serve to clean up the current gene pool a bit.
But, what sort of event would it take to selectively remove all electronics completely from the Earth in such a way that there would be no way to quickly recreate them? I'm having real problems coming up with a possible scenario that doesn't include extinction of all life, at least all human life.
Or perhaps try to fit ourselves into other planets/bodies in space. At some point we will have that ability. I'm not saying we should sit idly by until such a time, we should be trying to get 'out there' and colonize something, the moon perhaps as a starting point? But the concept that we need to warp everything we touch to fit our current needs seems a little over-reaching to me.
The easiest way I can think to describe it comes from the Dan Simmons novels in the Hyperion/Endymion series. The 'common' man changed planets to fit themselves, killing native species without thought, destroying native life-forms where ever they were found. The 'Ousters' were seen as barbarians by the common man, but they changed themselves to fit into the environments that they encountered. Some were actually capable of living in deep space for extended periods of time. I realize it's sci-fi, but the ideas behind it are already in development. Genetic engineering, robotic implants, and other body modifying technology is already feasable in the foreseeable future. Why not take it to that next logical step?
And for those that say this would remove our humanity, I would ask if that matters. I would want to see the memories of our time up to now remembered for a long time to come. Who cares if that means we have to change our bodies a little to make that happen? I certainly don't.
The assumption that we are the most important species to ever exist is a dangerous one at best, and a downright stupid one at worst. ---Me
While a share a small bit of concern, the one thing we can be completely confident in is that the stupidity of humanity will prevail. No life on Mars? Well, we have no business being there. What there is life? Quick, we've got to get our asses there so we can destroy it, tear it apart, study it, and make our mark. Don't let it survive unchanged! Don't let it exist as is!
Not to be alarmist, but humanity could deal with a little more forethought on subjects like this. Unfortunately, we should realize that no amount of 'realistic' discussion is going to cause the collective mind of society to consider reality in any way shape or form. If it's new, and it exists, we must have, destroy and maim it. It's the way we work.
The Sci-Fi writers that say humanity is the cockroach of the universe are wrong. Cockroaches aren't nearly as destructive as we are.
I believe you missed the point. We were discussing getting away from the "as we know it" part of the phrase, "life as we know it". What if they are completely different from us. Would the lack of a highly sulfurous atmosphere mean that there was no life here? Maybe, re-read the post I repsponded to, then re-read my post again. Seems your post was made totally counter to the topic at hand.
No hard feelings though, just pointing it out.
I believe this discussion has been had here before, but:,
It is abundantly obvious that the 'design' of the human body, or even some of the 'lesser' creatures is extremely wasteful. So, if we were designed (and that is one mighty gargantuan if, we were designed by an imbecile that had absolutely no idea what the hell they were doing.
Oh, and your attempt at saying that because we don't understand means it must be a higher intelligence is really ridiculous. That is religious posturing, nothing more. I don't understand how the hell anyone could stomach Britney Spears, does that mean she was created by a HIGHER intelligence? Very doubtful. But, go ahead and live with your delusions. That's probably easier than questioning the things around you.
Questions are hard, I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.
In the same token, isn't it arrogant to presume that life developed in a different way from life on Earth would be presumptious enough to assume that they should be looking to life similar/equal to their own. The chances are the other life forms, especially life forms advanced enough to find/look at Earth in detail from a great distance away (by travel or by instruments), would be a little more open-minded than what twentieth-twenty-first century man is. I would hope that by the time we are able to reach far enough away to go look at other planets in detail that we would have evolved past the "what we know is all that can be" garbage that is believed today.
But what do I know, I'm just an idiotic man, a product of the society I bash. That kind of sucks too.;-)
Did anyone else see the humor in Jon Katz complaining that someone's writing was too dry because it included content that moved forward quickly? Of course Jon would see that as dry, it is the polar opposite of his writing style, pointless drivel (which is all about the human element that he complains is missing in this book) that wanders on and on and never really seems to lead anywhere.
My other question would be that he claims the Microsoft era is completely over. When did this happen? It seems that companies using open-source are being told every day that they are basing their business on flimsy and terrible practices that threaten the very existence of humanity. I realize that this isn't a good sign for Microsoft, but I also am not stupid enough to claim that Microsoft is dead. They have a tendency to come through things that seem pretty bleak, and come out on the other end wiping blood from their mouths and proclaiming that they have destroyed another demonic monster that stands in the way of American Life. People still swallow everything out of Redmond as a general rule. Now, Slashdotters are the exception because we are aware of some of the back-scenes stuff going on, but don't think for a minute that Microsoft is dead and gone.
Sorry, but speaking in the past tense of someone or something that is definitely very much alive and well just kind of irks me. MS may be going down, but they may not be. And only time can truly tell.
Do you base all of your decisions on "market noise"? I mean, I understand wanting to support something that is likely to last, but jumping on the latest craze in the hopes that it will take off is not necissarily the best way to promote yourself in the software world.
Granted, I'll give you that Java was once a huge risk, just as many other 'technologies' before and since, but the idea that the person with the biggest wallet to hand over to marketing is right just seems ludicrous.
Marketing might does not make right. Sad that it might win in the end, but technology and marketing are usually at odds. Chances are real good that neither SOAP nor XML-RPC will end up being the be-all/end-all that they are supposed to be and each will simply become another tool to use in appropriate situations. Just be careful of the marketing noise, there have been a number of people that have gotten locked up when the heard a little too much marketing noise and started believing it.
I didn't say they are all bad, but the majority are. And likely they don't appear to be from outside of the classroom they teach in. But how often do they go out of their way to impress the "right" kids by picking on the "wrong" kids?
Sorry if I disagree with you. But seeing as how I only met about three to four teachers through my entire 'carreer' as a student that had any concern at all for the kids in their care, I really have a hard time buying that the majority of teachers are good. Maybe it's just where I grew up, maybe it's just the hard-assed teachers where I grew up, or maybe I just wasn't 'cool' enough to be thought of as a promising student.
I'm not some kid becrying his current fate either. I have plenty of years between me and my memories of school. I just don't see the point in defending people that made my life at that time a living hell. All because I refused to dress in preppy clothes and I didn't go get drunk with the jocks every weekend. I never understood the point, and I still don't. I just hope that my kids don't suffer through the same idiotic teaching principles that I had to.
Sorry that I'm concerned about bad teachers. I'm not going to pat someone on the back when they would do everything possible to kick me in the crotch. It just seems pointless to congradulate someone on destroying kids self-esteem.
OK, I've had my rant. Who gives a fuck anyway?!
It's the overprescription that was the focus of my comment. The fact that people feel they can rid the world of all problems if they just find the right pill is enough to make me vomit, and kids that wear the wrong clothes or don't hang with the right crowd are often thrown onto one drug or another because they are "different" in the hopes that it will normalize them.
I was lucky, my parents allowed me to decide whether I wanted to take the drugs I was told would "help" me or not. I never did. A pill won't 'cure' me of my differentness. For those that actually do have ADD, I apologize. My comment was not aimed at you. My comment was aimed at the kids the don't hang with the 'in' crowd and are told if they just take the right pill all of their problems will go away.
People participating in a conspiracy don't always have to be aware of it.
I would not doubt for a moment that your "real people" are the same sort of people that think anyone wearing a black t-shirt is a bad person, or that anyone that doesn't talk about Britney Spears has some deep social problems. At least, that was the way teachers were in my day (long before Britney Spears, maybe New Kids On The Block, a little before). If you are not "normal" you are to be punished for it. If not through actual 'official' punishment, then through gentle prodding and poking and/or being ignored when you ask for something.
Teachers have an important job, and there are some that have a little common sense, and some that even allow themselves to use it on the job. But those are rare. The fact is that in any job you eventually do one of two things: you either become one of "them", or you leave and look for work elsewhere. Since a teacher's job has become about teaching children to conform, they either teach children to conform, or they lose their job. It's a sad reality, but it is reality. I lived through it (maybe four teachers all the way from kindergarten up to high-school didn't fit the 'ostrasize the outcasts' mold), and countless others live through it every day. It's a result of society itself as much as it is of government. People don't care enough to get up in arms about it, just like they don't care enough to get up in arms when the government is led around by the business sector. It just isn't appealing to think that we are being opressed. And if it isn't appealing, then why do we want to think about it?
You ever seen the movie or read the book "Dead Poet's Society"?
That's probably the best "popular" exploration of the schools stated purpose and the schools real purpose and how totally at odds the two things really are. The fact is that schools are about establishing the heirarchy that you are supposed to cling to for the rest of your life. It is about teaching conformance, and stifling creativity. While the stated purpose may be different, and the occasional teacher may misconstrue what they are supposed to be doing (as in the above mentioned work of fiction), never kid yourself into believing that school is about teaching our younger generations how to succeed and survive on their own. It is all about teaching them how to "fit in", to the point of destroying any kid that just doesn't quite fit the parameters that are considered "normal".
I wonder how many creative geniuses are dieing behind a Ritalin (sp?) haze. Being different shouldn't be a crime, but schools have taught for generations that it is. So, if you are different, you are outcast, or destroyed before you are old enough to have any permanently damaging effects on the other people around you. Suicides of teenagers, while tragic, are probably thought of as the greatest benefit to society by school administrators. (I can just see some of those bastard principles saying, "Yes, got rid of another wierdo!")
Not to say that all school administrators are inherently evil. They are taught to be politically correct and conformant to the norm. And they are taught to make sure the kids in their care are forced to do the same, to the point of pain, and sometimes even death.
Don't think too much, or, pretend to do what they say, then go home and use your brain (some of us learn that early enough to prevent total brain-decay before we hit high-school). They may hate that you are using it in 'unapproved' ways, but what can they do about it? Unless they see 'weirdness' (dressing in black was enough to qualify in my day), then they probably won't care. Blend in and you're fine. It's angering, but so is the rest of life.
Do you need a towel after that session of masturbation?
It never ceases to amaze me how people that have absolutely no perception of what "art" actually stands for will rant on and on about how they have created the most beautiful art of all time while putting down anything that truly is art.
And so you don't get me wrong, art is not about classical training (and ignore the AC idiot that said that to you). Art is not about stroking your damn ego. Art is about doing something that evokes a huge overwhelming emotional response in the audience that hears, sees or otherwise senses your art. If it doesn't create an emotional response (and I know very, very few people that get an emotional response from an e-commerce site, save for you yourself), then it probably isn't really art. It may be attempted art, but much like atttempted murder is more lightly sentenced than actual murder, the creator suffers far less for attempting to create art than he or she does when creating actual art. It takes suffering, tears, sweat and sometimes even blood to create great art. And all of those things will be apparent to the 'casual' observer that is witness to that art. All this babbling about all programming being art is silly. Hell, not even all art is art. Just because someone put a guitar or a paint brush in your hand, that doesn't mean you are an artists. Just because you happen to be able to afford the computer and the education to program that doesn't mean you are an artist.
No offence meant, but stroking your own ego that hard in public is usually grounds for arrest (public lewdity is breaking the law). I'm not claiming I'm much of an artists now, but I've written songs that have brought people to tears in the past. I don't suffer much anymore, and that is reflected in the work I attempt to label art, but it doesn't feel like art.
On the off-chance that you are one of those people that has given up everything for your programming, it isn't just the suffering that matters. Show me your site, if I feel something because of it, then I will gladly retract my entire statement and bow down to your superior artistic talents. Otherwise, hush. And please, see someone about that ego problem.
Pardon the flames, but someone had to do it.
Ain't it the truth!
I play guitar and I do a bit of programming/web design. When I'm on stage raging out a solo, every woman in the house is ready to jump at me. But every damn one of them that I've given a chance has gotten this glazed look when they start talking to me. I guess I gotta work on that;-).
Actually, I'm a very happily married man. My wife happens to glaze over when I start talking about guitars and music. Go figure.
I really liked that comment. It's like Napster is the most vile and evil thing that has ever existed (never mind the million other ways/places to get MP3s).
But the thing I really like is the reason they give for not providing a downloadable source of music. They keep harping on the idea that they cannot be 'guaranteed' compensation if someone can download music. To me, this is just silly. Is there any guarantee when you purchase a CD to the record company that you won't/can't copy that CD? Hell no! Was there a guarantee that you couldn't copy the music off of vinyl? No. What's the big deal? I know that copying is easier, but if the RIAA would just loosen up a little bit, realize the marketing potential and sell music at a decent price, the pirating business wouldn't matter. People are basically honest. If they were treated fairly they won't be copying a million copies of MP3s and transfering them all over the place. But, they are charging up to $20 for a CD that cost them a few pennies to manufacture, and compensating the artist between $.30 and $1.00 per sale (OK, in some cases it has been negotiated above that, but that's a rarity.) People say that artists deserve to be compensated for record sales, but they aren't getting it through the RIAA member companies.
I don't use napster myself. I copy every CD that I own into MP3 format so that I can carry it around in my laptop and listen to it easily on my desktop, but as far as I know everything I do with it should fall under fair use. I know there is talk that the RIAA wants a person to purchase a seperate CD for each place they listen to it (as in licensing schemes on computers), but they can piss off on that one. If they charged less, I might consider it.
I don't think legislation is going to fix this, however they do have the right idea. I don't think that congress should be able to set record prices either, but at least they are acknowledging that the prices right now are ridiculous, and that something needs to be done to adress the online download potential. I would say, even though I don't like the idea of it being based on new governmental regulations, they are pushing for the right things. They would be creating a competition based market in this realm where the company that came up with the easiest/best distrobution method and priced things the best would come out on top, ending the RIAA monopoly on big-name record sales. Funny how government regulation on one hand can turn your stomach, but on the other hand seem so right. I don't know how to feel about this one.
Can an addiction become a need?
Not being a smart-ass, this is serious. I know damn good and well that I'm addicted to music, just not others music. If I don't play guitar for about a month I get really, really unpleasant to be around. Hell, sometimes I get that way before I can get home and crank up.
So, to me, music is a need. Not in this sense (needing to hear other's new music), but in the sense that I must play and create music. My fear with the fallout of the Napster crap is that the RIAA will somehow manage to promote the idea of music as intellectual property to the point where playing my guitar will mean I need to pay them for that privelege. I would hate to have to go on an RIAA killing spree, but I would sooner do that than pay those assholes for the right to create.
Funny, this kind of falls in line with the Microsoft article earlier about how MS wants Open Source Software outlawed. A few years ago it would have been absurd to think that the process of creation could be put under regulations, but now it seems to just be a matter of time. If you don't have the moola, you shouldn't have the right to create. Or at least that's what the big businesses think. And with the government firmly in the pockets of the rich, they will eventually swing that hammer down.
Yes, I realize it sounds conspiratorial, but I just get this feeling that opression is going to be a pleasant thought compared to the state the US is eventually going to find itself in. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I am not.
I was laughing along with you until I started to think about how few people around me have even half a clue. When you realize how truly brain-dead most people are, and how they seem to like being brain-dead, well, it isn't nearly so funny.
Some people swallow every word out of corporations like Microsoft because, "if they made that much money they must be really smart." They never consider that there are some things that Microsoft has done that weren't so smart, or that a lot of Microsoft's early success (which has been built on to this day) could be attributed to being in the right place at the right time. And god forbid that anyone question anything they hear out of corporate America!
Sorry, I need to lay off the caffiene. This pisses me off, and my thoughts are a little too scattered to come up with a totally coherent argument. But I really, really look for this to be a big push over the next few years from the big boys of the software only business. The companies that are hardware oriented in some way may come to embrace open-source as a money saving device, and may be some of our best-friends in fighting this type of non-sense (look at Apple and IBM at the moment). The real question is, just how much money, effort, and PR is going to be oriented on discrediting the open source and free software movements as a bunch of criminal and negligent idiots over the next few years? And, probably more importantly, just how much of it will be swallowed by the government officials in charge of the legal systems of the country?
They do pay a lot of money for PR, probably only paying more to lawyers, but the real problem lies in the fact that not everything you hear "From Microsoft" is directly filtered by the PR company. Seriously, if you look at the stupid, inconsistent, and just blantantly wrong propganda spewed forth by MS, it is usually from one of the executives that went shooting off his mouth at some point, whether it is Bill or Ballmer or one of the cronies. Then, for the next few months that will be the company line, until the next idiot opens his mouth at some dinner or other press-invaded conference. Then it will be time to make a huge about face and pretend that the thing they had held onto as sacred for the past few months was just bullshit, or never happened at all.
I just hate hearing this because MS has the money and power to actually get people to take this shit seriously. I know that I've heard plenty of high-dollar types talk about how 'geeks are ruining Linux by preventing corporations from steering it in the correct direction', does this now mean that these same uninformed types are going to be saying, 'it's time we completely outlaw open source software and make sure those damn geeks get put in their place once and for all'? I hope not, but never underestimate the power of stupidity in the rich, very rich, and generally ignorant assholes in power.
Sh, quiet, you'll give the RIAA ideas and then I'll be out of a hobby again (not to mention that the confiscation of my approximately $25,000 in accumulated 'contraband' musical gear would probably throw me into a depression that I would never come out of).
Right now, when you buy a DVD you own it. But I am quickly seeing things shape up where, because it is digital content, the MPAA are going to say that by buying the DVD you have just purchased a license to view it and that you must abide by some type of EULA type contract (in which I am certain they will say playing on an 'unauthorized' player will be illegal and a breach of contract). Whether they can make that stick or not is an interesting debate, and one we won't see settled until the first case of DVD EULA contract breach goes through the courts.
Just thought I'd point that out. I agree with your sentiments, and that we should own things that we have purchased, but I'm sure the movie company would disagree with you.
Typically I will make some comment about how ridiculous the outfit looks. But the one slip up I've never made is that when she says she wishes she had a body like that, I have never, no matter how tempting, said, "so do I." I'm not as stupid as I appear.;-)
My wife and I have discussed many "what if" scenarios and came up with a simple test that I think any couple/person should be able to apply to this situation.
If you feel that you can tell your partner about what you are doing/contemplating doing and not expect repurcussions, then you probably aren't cheating.
If you feel you have to avoid telling your partner about what you are doing/contemplating then you are cheating, plain and simple. If not by your action, by your lack of faith in the relationship.
Of course, my wife goes out of her way to show me pictures of other women in scanty clothing, so what would I know? (Actually I think that's a sign of the trust she has in me, which is a good thing.)
Sorry, I should have specified, when I said portable radio I was talking boom-box style portables. Something that more than one person can listen to comfortably.
Well, I don't know about you, but a laptop is much smaller/lighter than most of those 'portable' radio thingies. And as far as the time consideration, I don't know what type of laptop you are using. When using mine for only MP3 playback I get about four hours on one battery. But that tends to shorten up if I'm doing major program compiles or something. But on my old beater, all it gets used for is MP3 playback (with a nice little tape adapter for use in the car). It's worked pretty good so far.
I agree that we need shock proof hard drives while they are running though. I would kill for a really, REALLY solid hard drive for portables. Even though mine has worked good so far, I haven't travelled any really rough roads with it powered up. I really doubt it would last long at all if I was off-roading with it.