And I think the point should be that in space we will have to struggle to survive again---whereas here we've become all comfortable and self-complacent. Consider your own life: have you noticed that everything you've done that is worth something was done under pressure?
My experience has been that the older a guy is, the lower his expectations get as to the looks of the girl he is looking to court. Listen to a group of 15 & 16 year olds sometime---or maybe even ask them. Their expectations are usually very high because thats what they see on television or on movies.
I am not judging this or anything, but its just the reality of the society we live in.
The Matrix isn't based on any real philosophy---the writers just happened to stumble onto some material that, when taken in hindsight, is ambigious enough to be reinterpreted into Plato's Theory of the Forms, Descartes' evil demon, Nietzsche's overman (heh, try *that one* on for size:), and of course the crusifixion of Christ. *That* is how vague the movie is on philosophical grounds. This leads me to believe that the writers of the first movie have little to no clue what it is that they stumbled upon and all them people who leave the movie "Whoa, whodathunk?" are in serious need for real philosophy:)
It gets far more wacky than anything you will find on the Matrix. Neo confused a pot hole for a rabbit hole.
I think I've figured it out and its all so simple. Star Trek was cultivated during and after the cold war, a time of great hostility and pressure. Star Trek was an expression of people's hope for the future. They looked around and honestly weren't certain there was any chance for us. What they needed was a Picard, a morally righteous person, a kind of father who they could count on to make wise decisions. And a great leader for the nation.
But now times have changed. America is now the sole superpower of the world. We've grown arrogant and cynical. That star trek of the past is no longer suitable. Deep Space 9 had the right idea. It was dark and more disturbing. You have a crew with all these conflicting alliances. You have a looming war on the horizon. And you have a captain a bit more Machiavellian than Picard.
But Enterprise is trying to pick of up them people who used to watch the original show. Captain Archer is just a more naive version of Picard from our viewpoint. But them people who watched the original show have also changed. Its a shame that Rick Berman and friends have not.
Politics, it is readily apparent, seriously stupifies people--as I can see this forum is no exception. So here's a warning: think twice or not at all.
The liberals complain about conservatives; conservatives complain about liberals. And they both lose sight of anything *real*. This article looks like a troll. And you guys are falling for it completely; not because its true but because it reassures your own predetermined views on things.
"...why does everyone continue to belive that the government can do a better job at space exploration than the private sector?"
Eh...there's nothing stopping them, you know. Instead they seem cool with footing the government with all the risks while they sell contracts. Sounds win-win.
"Companies are too nearsighted; they wouldn't appreciate the impact of expensive space based R&D."
Really, this isn't in their interest. There's no one to sell to in space. This sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Unfortunately, whenever someone talks about how the government spends its money someone always shows up to spout their particular political agenda. I'm sure Harry Browne would be proud.
But the problem isn't how the government is structured or where the money comes from or who the money goes to. This hypercapitalistic approach to reality boggles my mind. Someone has already said what the problem is: we need some people with balls. They have to lob around with their big 'ol grapefruits hollering "Go ahead! Hit me where it hurts!"
And hopefully the people, government, and corporations will see what this person is trying to do and not take advantage of the situation. This is the only way we'll make it to Mars or who knows where: balls in tact.
"A business's only motivation is, and should be, to make a profit. If people wish to impose morality on a business, it should be done the same way, through profit."
You make it sound like this is a good thing.
A business is just as responsible for its actions as any other person. If it does something wrong, it should be punished fitting with the crime.
Insisting on boycotts as the answer is stupid, and you should know that. It introduces the Prisoner's Dillema where defecting is in the favor of the business. A business can go about doing so many wrongs with little regard for boycotts, because the boycott that works is the exception, not the rule.
Ethics is categorical. There are no exceptions for greed or whatever the hell it is that makes you feel good about yourself at night.
"Unfortunately, this is probably another issue where people would rather bitch than take action."
What the hell is this? You're putting the responsibility of a business to its actions on everyone else. Thats bullshit. If I kick a kid in the shin, I get arrested. The same thing works for business. What you're proposing is stupid.
"If they say 'word processor' don't suggest 'text editor!'"
I know you really tried to form a distinction between the two, distinctions that are probably clear in your mind, but both text editors and word processor have been gaining features in the past ten or twenty years and lo and behold: they overlap!
It means you can't expect an advanced text editor to not have the features an advanced word processory has. And vice-versa. It also means that the question itself is vague--when he is asking for a word processor what set of features is he looking for? Since he wants it to be console based surely he isn't looking for an editor that inserts graphics (which GNU Emacs 21 can too BTW). But anything else is speculation really.
I'd suggest him to install a large GNU/Linux distribution and start trying out programs that are described as either text editors OR word processors.
"That's why they exist; because your founding fathers understood that power corrupts."
Such a truism that I hesitate to doubt it, yet I don't know it for certain nor do I know if it occurs to all men equally. Is there anyone alive who knows justice so well that we can see him as an immovable man who we can trust entirely for a short term? Can such a man be taught justice in such a way?
"Point being: to live in a free country, you will have to accept a few deaths you couldn't prevent because of the protection a free country garanties."
A free country only guarentees mistrust. And I mean trust in a strict sense: not as a sense of confidence but as someone who is able to harm you. Implicit trust, if you will.
Terrorism is a real problem and if we can catch a few of them bastards in exchange for causing you to hallucinate black helicopters, then I'm all for it.
Now I know you're protective of your rights and we all should be. But there is always an exchange between a certain about of security and a certain amount of privacy and the question shouldn't be wholly one-sided, a proposition that seems to thrill the slashdot audience. We must ask where's the balance.
Now let me attempt to toss away the rubish and rhetoric so common to politics that throws around words like "freedom" as if they mean anything outside of context and spiffy quotes by gentlemen we admire and I'll attempt to enter the light of clear thinking. To you and each one of you "freedom" seems synonymous with distrust or, even worse, you forget you are speaking about people altogether. That every three-letter acronym in the USA is run by our government which in turn are elected by us Americans and this must position some trust on their behalf. That the professionals that we, in effect, hire may be trusted and at some level are trying to do their jobs well and care about what they do enough to do a good job of it. Don't you think recent troubles with terrorism weigh more heavily on them than anyone else?
Otherwise, read my sig and take to heart. And let me know when the black helicopters come your way.
"Just chalk it up to experience, we've all made an accidental troll in our lives."
I think you've just flipped the concept of troll backwards.
I think people read my post as a troll because of their own prejudices, not my "accusations". My only accusation was of an infatuation with branding; the comparison with Microsoft and Apple was only incidental because they do the same thing--only they have a reason.
I suppose what I should chalk up to experience is using "Microsoft" as anything other than a symbol for evil, the connotation is most damning for any argument otherwise expressed.
"The Free Software Community shouldn't be reacting to Microsoft, the DOJ or anything else external to Free Software."
Actually, the judge doesn't believe free software is competition to Microsoft. But free software does have to react because it *does* compete with Microsoft. And for every legal action (more restrictive licensing, Palladium) comes and equal and opposite legal reaction (GPL 3).
The battle is far from over. We should all await the best GPL yet.
"People also wonder why coders who work long hours on free software projects which are licensed in a manner that allows people to do whatever they want with any part of the code as long as the changes are released, would give a damn about the branding someone else wants or doesn't want on it."
Actually, this is the point I was trying to make that seemed to be missed by all. Why would people who devote their free time to writing code brand their software? Why do they want to use these marketing tactics to attract users? That these people care about the end users a great deal is obvious to anyone but those who are aghast by my post.
"What he really should do if he doesn't like the branding is to go through the KDE code and make all the de-branding changes he wishes."
This is really silly. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything by my opinion, and having an opinion does not mean that I am forced to cause it to happen. If you look at my post closely, you'll see the suggestion as constructive where "If you want X, then you should do Y." If they don't want X, then they needn't bother with Y. And the assumption is that some of the KDE coders also want X. Do you see?
"However, as was mentioned in the interview this was all about in the first place, people like to talk about this stuff far more than to do it."
This is true. I just consider myself a voice from the audience. Apparently others in the audience disagree with me. But do you think the players care any more for your disagreement than my comment?
I know with free speech comes responsibility, but this is insane.
My God. I post a simple comment one day (I don't post to Slashdot a whole lot, if you read my user info) and the next day I see fifteen messages in response to my post, many of them simply saying I'm a troll.
I'm not trolling!
Guess what I've done. I run ratpoison now. The branding is far less apparent now with the lack of window decorations, but I still have that gear throbbing in the corner of Konqueror. I go to the help menu, and at the bottom is "About KDE".
Now don't get me wrong, it really isn't *that* important to me. I can live with some of the branding, I don't use many KDE applications anyway. But it would be nice to do without...
But I gather a lot of people disagree with me. That's fine, I like independent thinking. But that doesn't make me a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
How can there be a human nature when we keep evolving all the time?
And I think the point should be that in space we will have to struggle to survive again---whereas here we've become all comfortable and self-complacent. Consider your own life: have you noticed that everything you've done that is worth something was done under pressure?
Lets go to Mars!
hahah
But I would say that in the first movie we meet Plato and in the second movie we meet Aristotle---and its all obsolete :)
Because I want to see how this software works that NASA is using.
You were moderated up as "Funny" but I fear you are not joking...
And never their customers. This is such hypocrisy...but you guys enjoy it too much.
Dude...this is slashdot we're talking about...they still think First Post is funny.
What?
Since when did the earth have two moons? Is it possible to see the other one?
My experience has been that the older a guy is, the lower his expectations get as to the looks of the girl he is looking to court. Listen to a group of 15 & 16 year olds sometime---or maybe even ask them. Their expectations are usually very high because thats what they see on television or on movies.
I am not judging this or anything, but its just the reality of the society we live in.
The Matrix isn't based on any real philosophy---the writers just happened to stumble onto some material that, when taken in hindsight, is ambigious enough to be reinterpreted into Plato's Theory of the Forms, Descartes' evil demon, Nietzsche's overman (heh, try *that one* on for size :), and of course the crusifixion of Christ. *That* is how vague the movie is on philosophical grounds. This leads me to believe that the writers of the first movie have little to no clue what it is that they stumbled upon and all them people who leave the movie "Whoa, whodathunk?" are in serious need for real philosophy :)
It gets far more wacky than anything you will find on the Matrix. Neo confused a pot hole for a rabbit hole.
I think I've figured it out and its all so simple. Star Trek was cultivated during and after the cold war, a time of great hostility and pressure. Star Trek was an expression of people's hope for the future. They looked around and honestly weren't certain there was any chance for us. What they needed was a Picard, a morally righteous person, a kind of father who they could count on to make wise decisions. And a great leader for the nation.
But now times have changed. America is now the sole superpower of the world. We've grown arrogant and cynical. That star trek of the past is no longer suitable. Deep Space 9 had the right idea. It was dark and more disturbing. You have a crew with all these conflicting alliances. You have a looming war on the horizon. And you have a captain a bit more Machiavellian than Picard.
But Enterprise is trying to pick of up them people who used to watch the original show. Captain Archer is just a more naive version of Picard from our viewpoint. But them people who watched the original show have also changed. Its a shame that Rick Berman and friends have not.
Politics, it is readily apparent, seriously stupifies people--as I can see this forum is no exception. So here's a warning: think twice or not at all.
The liberals complain about conservatives; conservatives complain about liberals. And they both lose sight of anything *real*. This article looks like a troll. And you guys are falling for it completely; not because its true but because it reassures your own predetermined views on things.
Don't be stupid like that.
"...why does everyone continue to belive that the government can do a better job at space exploration than the private sector?"
Eh...there's nothing stopping them, you know. Instead they seem cool with footing the government with all the risks while they sell contracts. Sounds win-win.
"Companies are too nearsighted; they wouldn't appreciate the impact of expensive space based R&D."
Really, this isn't in their interest. There's no one to sell to in space. This sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Unfortunately, whenever someone talks about how the government spends its money someone always shows up to spout their particular political agenda. I'm sure Harry Browne would be proud.
But the problem isn't how the government is structured or where the money comes from or who the money goes to. This hypercapitalistic approach to reality boggles my mind. Someone has already said what the problem is: we need some people with balls. They have to lob around with their big 'ol grapefruits hollering "Go ahead! Hit me where it hurts!"
And hopefully the people, government, and corporations will see what this person is trying to do and not take advantage of the situation. This is the only way we'll make it to Mars or who knows where: balls in tact.
It only takes one guy.
"A business's only motivation is, and should be, to make a profit. If people wish to impose morality on a business, it should be done the same way, through profit."
You make it sound like this is a good thing.
A business is just as responsible for its actions as any other person. If it does something wrong, it should be punished fitting with the crime.
Insisting on boycotts as the answer is stupid, and you should know that. It introduces the Prisoner's Dillema where defecting is in the favor of the business. A business can go about doing so many wrongs with little regard for boycotts, because the boycott that works is the exception, not the rule.
Ethics is categorical. There are no exceptions for greed or whatever the hell it is that makes you feel good about yourself at night.
"Unfortunately, this is probably another issue where people would rather bitch than take action."
What the hell is this? You're putting the responsibility of a business to its actions on everyone else. Thats bullshit. If I kick a kid in the shin, I get arrested. The same thing works for business. What you're proposing is stupid.
IMO, anyways.
"If they say 'word processor' don't suggest 'text editor!'"
I know you really tried to form a distinction between the two, distinctions that are probably clear in your mind, but both text editors and word processor have been gaining features in the past ten or twenty years and lo and behold: they overlap!
It means you can't expect an advanced text editor to not have the features an advanced word processory has. And vice-versa. It also means that the question itself is vague--when he is asking for a word processor what set of features is he looking for? Since he wants it to be console based surely he isn't looking for an editor that inserts graphics (which GNU Emacs 21 can too BTW). But anything else is speculation really.
I'd suggest him to install a large GNU/Linux distribution and start trying out programs that are described as either text editors OR word processors.
Results may vary
"That's why they exist; because your founding fathers understood that power corrupts."
Such a truism that I hesitate to doubt it, yet I don't know it for certain nor do I know if it occurs to all men equally. Is there anyone alive who knows justice so well that we can see him as an immovable man who we can trust entirely for a short term? Can such a man be taught justice in such a way?
"Point being: to live in a free country, you will have to accept a few deaths you couldn't prevent because of the protection a free country garanties."
A free country only guarentees mistrust. And I mean trust in a strict sense: not as a sense of confidence but as someone who is able to harm you. Implicit trust, if you will.
At least you're being honest.
You're just being paranoid.
Terrorism is a real problem and if we can catch a few of them bastards in exchange for causing you to hallucinate black helicopters, then I'm all for it.
Now I know you're protective of your rights and we all should be. But there is always an exchange between a certain about of security and a certain amount of privacy and the question shouldn't be wholly one-sided, a proposition that seems to thrill the slashdot audience. We must ask where's the balance.
Now let me attempt to toss away the rubish and rhetoric so common to politics that throws around words like "freedom" as if they mean anything outside of context and spiffy quotes by gentlemen we admire and I'll attempt to enter the light of clear thinking. To you and each one of you "freedom" seems synonymous with distrust or, even worse, you forget you are speaking about people altogether. That every three-letter acronym in the USA is run by our government which in turn are elected by us Americans and this must position some trust on their behalf. That the professionals that we, in effect, hire may be trusted and at some level are trying to do their jobs well and care about what they do enough to do a good job of it. Don't you think recent troubles with terrorism weigh more heavily on them than anyone else?
Otherwise, read my sig and take to heart. And let me know when the black helicopters come your way.
Don't tell the programmers but you need a 50% change in performance for us mere humans to notice.
"Just chalk it up to experience, we've all made an accidental troll in our lives."
I think you've just flipped the concept of troll backwards.
I think people read my post as a troll because of their own prejudices, not my "accusations". My only accusation was of an infatuation with branding; the comparison with Microsoft and Apple was only incidental because they do the same thing--only they have a reason.
I suppose what I should chalk up to experience is using "Microsoft" as anything other than a symbol for evil, the connotation is most damning for any argument otherwise expressed.
"The Free Software Community shouldn't be reacting to Microsoft, the DOJ or anything else external to Free Software."
Actually, the judge doesn't believe free software is competition to Microsoft. But free software does have to react because it *does* compete with Microsoft. And for every legal action (more restrictive licensing, Palladium) comes and equal and opposite legal reaction (GPL 3).
The battle is far from over. We should all await the best GPL yet.
"People also wonder why coders who work long hours on free software projects which are licensed in a manner that allows people to do whatever they want with any part of the code as long as the changes are released, would give a damn about the branding someone else wants or doesn't want on it."
Actually, this is the point I was trying to make that seemed to be missed by all. Why would people who devote their free time to writing code brand their software? Why do they want to use these marketing tactics to attract users? That these people care about the end users a great deal is obvious to anyone but those who are aghast by my post.
"What he really should do if he doesn't like the branding is to go through the KDE code and make all the de-branding changes he wishes."
This is really silly. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything by my opinion, and having an opinion does not mean that I am forced to cause it to happen. If you look at my post closely, you'll see the suggestion as constructive where "If you want X, then you should do Y." If they don't want X, then they needn't bother with Y. And the assumption is that some of the KDE coders also want X. Do you see?
"However, as was mentioned in the interview this was all about in the first place, people like to talk about this stuff far more than to do it."
This is true. I just consider myself a voice from the audience. Apparently others in the audience disagree with me. But do you think the players care any more for your disagreement than my comment?
I know with free speech comes responsibility, but this is insane.
My God. I post a simple comment one day (I don't post to Slashdot a whole lot, if you read my user info) and the next day I see fifteen messages in response to my post, many of them simply saying I'm a troll.
I'm not trolling!
Guess what I've done. I run ratpoison now. The branding is far less apparent now with the lack of window decorations, but I still have that gear throbbing in the corner of Konqueror. I go to the help menu, and at the bottom is "About KDE".
Now don't get me wrong, it really isn't *that* important to me. I can live with some of the branding, I don't use many KDE applications anyway. But it would be nice to do without...
But I gather a lot of people disagree with me. That's fine, I like independent thinking. But that doesn't make me a troll.