I completely agree. For the past few months I've been arguing vigorously against my father about socialism/communism versus capitalism. The most common argument I get is 'human nature.' Everyone uses this little phrase to explain away any behavior that they can't understand. Why would anyone not want to share? Oh, well, I don't know so it must be human nature. Why are the humans the only species to periodically engage in the mass destruction of ourselves? Hmmm, must be our nature. Can't be the socialogical factors contributing to our behavior, or the subconscious influences we've recieved from anything and everything over the years. Nope, it's just undefiable human nature.
Capitalists will argue that communism has failed and turned into despotism in its first implementations because it is against human nature. However, human nature doesn't really explain anything. It makes much more sense to me that the reason people cannout immediately adapt from capitalism to communism is because capitalism has been mentally entrenched in everyone's minds so firmly, that we don't even realize when we're being selfish. From birth we are taught to be responsible for ourselves, and not to worry about other people. The glamor associated with winning and being victorious in our society is incredible strong, and to suggest that this is so merely because it is human nature seems to me ludicrous.
The other argument is that communism is undemocratic. This stems from the common perception that USSR/Despotism = Communism. THIS IS NOT SO. The minimal government that would initially exist should be entirely democratic. (Here was one failure of its first implementations - they had leaders! In a true communistic society, whoever gets the bright idea to set it up would be working in the fields right along side everyone else.) As history progresses, governments tend to get more progressive and geared towards the people, not less. The trend has gone from feudalism to monarchism to capitalism to a democratic republic; it is only logical that the next step would be one to where no one person is given importance over anyone else, where *every* occupation is democratic, and where every citizen is entitled to a roof over their head and three meals a day.
Now, hold up, could someone please explain to me how Mozilla only works well on "new" computers with 128M of RAM? I use a Pentium 266 at work, with 64M of RAM and such other state-of-the-art-1997 stats. Mozilla runs fine. Like a fast race car. Like a smooth, sleek fast race car after a fresh oil bath. Vrooooom, Vrooooooo, Vroooooom...
Sorry, got carried away there. Anyway, Mozilla (w/talkback & Java & Flash) really does run quite well on that machine, and every machine I've tried it on with similar stats, at least for builds within the past few months. The only place I've *ever* seen Mozilla run slowly is on the computer I'm using right now, my old, dependable, Pentium 166, which runs EVERYTHING slow - admittedly, Mozilla more so than others. Wait, somewhere in all this I have a point. Oh, right, that one. Yes, I'm still wondering what the deal is with people who need hugely gobbly machines to run Mozilla well, or is my P266 a "new" machine that is being referred to?
...I personally don't think it really matters. The class I'm taking is pretty much a joke. I'm probably the only student in the class who's actually going to take the AP Exam, and that's only because I already *knew* C++ going into the class. In fact, the only reason the class is even coming close to learning anything now is because I told the teacher that it might be a good idea to use an online tutorial for the class, rather than his random Visual C++ sample progs. In general, from what I've seen, the test is designed to be pretty passable to anyone with basic programming/logic skills and has spent at least a week involved with that particular language. I doubt the move to Java will have any real effect, although it might make it a little easier on some of the students.
Slashdot Mirror
No no, *reality* has a well-known liberal bias. Truthiness comes from your gut.
I completely agree. For the past few months I've been arguing vigorously against my father about socialism/communism versus capitalism. The most common argument I get is 'human nature.' Everyone uses this little phrase to explain away any behavior that they can't understand. Why would anyone not want to share? Oh, well, I don't know so it must be human nature. Why are the humans the only species to periodically engage in the mass destruction of ourselves? Hmmm, must be our nature. Can't be the socialogical factors contributing to our behavior, or the subconscious influences we've recieved from anything and everything over the years. Nope, it's just undefiable human nature. Capitalists will argue that communism has failed and turned into despotism in its first implementations because it is against human nature. However, human nature doesn't really explain anything. It makes much more sense to me that the reason people cannout immediately adapt from capitalism to communism is because capitalism has been mentally entrenched in everyone's minds so firmly, that we don't even realize when we're being selfish. From birth we are taught to be responsible for ourselves, and not to worry about other people. The glamor associated with winning and being victorious in our society is incredible strong, and to suggest that this is so merely because it is human nature seems to me ludicrous. The other argument is that communism is undemocratic. This stems from the common perception that USSR/Despotism = Communism. THIS IS NOT SO. The minimal government that would initially exist should be entirely democratic. (Here was one failure of its first implementations - they had leaders! In a true communistic society, whoever gets the bright idea to set it up would be working in the fields right along side everyone else.) As history progresses, governments tend to get more progressive and geared towards the people, not less. The trend has gone from feudalism to monarchism to capitalism to a democratic republic; it is only logical that the next step would be one to where no one person is given importance over anyone else, where *every* occupation is democratic, and where every citizen is entitled to a roof over their head and three meals a day.
Now, hold up, could someone please explain to me how Mozilla only works well on "new" computers with 128M of RAM? I use a Pentium 266 at work, with 64M of RAM and such other state-of-the-art-1997 stats. Mozilla runs fine. Like a fast race car. Like a smooth, sleek fast race car after a fresh oil bath. Vrooooom, Vrooooooo, Vroooooom...
Sorry, got carried away there. Anyway, Mozilla (w/talkback & Java & Flash) really does run quite well on that machine, and every machine I've tried it on with similar stats, at least for builds within the past few months. The only place I've *ever* seen Mozilla run slowly is on the computer I'm using right now, my old, dependable, Pentium 166, which runs EVERYTHING slow - admittedly, Mozilla more so than others. Wait, somewhere in all this I have a point. Oh, right, that one. Yes, I'm still wondering what the deal is with people who need hugely gobbly machines to run Mozilla well, or is my P266 a "new" machine that is being referred to?
...I personally don't think it really matters. The class I'm taking is pretty much a joke. I'm probably the only student in the class who's actually going to take the AP Exam, and that's only because I already *knew* C++ going into the class. In fact, the only reason the class is even coming close to learning anything now is because I told the teacher that it might be a good idea to use an online tutorial for the class, rather than his random Visual C++ sample progs. In general, from what I've seen, the test is designed to be pretty passable to anyone with basic programming/logic skills and has spent at least a week involved with that particular language. I doubt the move to Java will have any real effect, although it might make it a little easier on some of the students.