What you don't grasp is that whatever people spend their money on, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others, is the best choice precisely because it was made my them, free from coercion.
Therefore, according to your argument, any choice made free from coercion is the best choice. Let me say that again: your proposition is that any choice made free from coercion is the best choice.
So, no matter how much thought was put into that choice, or how much experience the choice was based on, or how much knowledge the choice was based on, or what state of consciousness the choice was made in, it is, according to you, the best choice, only because it was free from coercion.
If your own proposition is starting to sound strange to you, I congratulate you and welcome you back to reality. If it doesn't, I wish you luck in finding your liberatopia.
It's about national security stupid. It means we're less dependent on OPEC and the King of Saudi Arabia. And, yeah, the cost of energy will probably decline somewhat too, but that's a perk.
But I disagree with the offsetting argument. The demand for energy is just going to go up to meet the increasing supply.
Your comment makes me wonder. Is Firefox really more bloated or is it just the size of modern web pages? It's common sense that Firefox has to load the content of open web pages into it's own memory store. Try opening smaller web pages if you want your memory back:)
Interesting. I'm running Debian Lenny on my Asus EEE 2 Surf with 256 MB and 2GB of disk space, and I still have room for more stuff.
It's about customization stupid*. That's the difference, you *can't* easily uninstall half the operating system on any version Windows like you can on Debian. Just so you know, I'm still running X Windows, xmonad, firefox, abiword, gnumeric, wxmaxima, emacs.
I think, these days, from the year that Tog wrote that article, your comment needs to be qualified. What he was talking about were primitive user interface elements: bolding, opening a file, saving a file, etc. But the qualification needs to be about expressability of the input method. So, if you are repeating the same or similar tasks over and over again, yeah it would be more productive to use the mouse. But, one may argue, if one is repeating the same task over and over again, that is something that should be automated anyway. Compare the key sequences for making every first letter of a sentence in a document a capital letter to the mouse sequence, and you might have a point. But if I can do a regexp search and replace, I'd have to use the key sequence. There is simply no mouse sequence that can do the equivalent; ultimately, the mouse isn't expressive enough. The mouse is expressive in dragging and dropping, and right-clicking (something that Apple isn't too fond of), but that's as far as you get. To get more expressive you need a full language by which you can give detailed commands to the computer. In 1989 people weren't thinking in that fashion.
All you need with a federated service like identi.ca is a small percentage of the participants to host a server. and those people just need a hosting account they can get out of their disposable income.
And we wonder why Linux can't seem to make inroads onto the desktop, when the headline and no small number of posters here are not at all subtle about looking down their noses at anyone who isn't dedicated enough to an ideology to intentionally cripple their machine's 3D performance.
I'm hoping this wasn't intentional. No, no one here hates 3D graphics. But we do hate the way things are in the Windows and Apple worlds. Really, if this is your attitude, what's the point of moving to GNU/Linux at all? Ah, choice right? Take that answer all the way down to it's consequences and you'll understand why people are intentionally crippling their machine's 3D performance. But that will require that you think beyond the shiny.
Face facts: 95% of people who use X do not and never will care about the ideology behind X for all X in Software. If you insist on demeaning them or inconveniencing them with your ideology, they won't use your software. I'm going to go play a 3D game that's not a slideshow now...
How is this even relevant? The free software movement isn't about a popularity contest.
I suggest you learn a little bit more about this "ideology" you're talking about and why it's been shaking things up for so long.
I don't know why this kind of thing keeps getting modded up. At this point, I don't even think it matters what the "people just want stuff to work" posters think. The difference is between those who understand what free software philosophy is and why it is important, and those who don't.
But then I think this really comes from the consumerist mentality, from people who want results in exchange for $$$, but don't realize how crappy computing really is when you're at the behest of companies who depend on locking down and restricting their customer's systems for their very livelihood. That is, ultimately, what the software industry amounts to, and is really the only way it can thrive.
So, who cares about binary drivers? That's a short-sighted question by someone who can't fucking see the big picture.
I don't understand. Why can't you make an unmanned aircraft with stealth technology? Or an unmanned aircraft that is as fast as, or even faster, than the F22? You're assuming that manned aircraft are necessarily faster and only manned aircraft can be cloaked from radar/infrared. I don't know a lot about air combat so could you explain why this is so?
Your crazy. My money is the result of me contracting out my labor to others.
Where do you think they got *their* money from?
You don't think people pay to drive on roads? They do every time they fill up.
They are paying for gas, not roads. Gas stations don't use that money to pay for the road system.
Key word *choice*. Others lack of bathing is the reason I chose to drive. Should I be forced to buy them showers? Yes, certain factors cause us to make voluntary economic choices, that's good.. the problems start occurring when opinionated bastards like yourself force others to pay for things you like at gun point all because you make a certain choice and they don't. You like the bus then YOU pay for it and stop having your tax goons take my money to do it, forcing others to pay for something you like is barbaric and wrong.
Wow, now I'm an opinionated bastard. Rid yourself of your overzealous ideology and then you might be able to look at things a bit more deeply.
You've got me wondering, though. What if we have the opposite problem than we expect, what if algae-farming proves [i]too[/i] successful and we're overproducing algae just like we're not overproducing oil. Then, instead of too much carbon being released from the atmosphere, what if too much carbon is taken [i]out[/i] of the atmosphere? Will vegetation around the planet begin suffocating from too little carbon dioxide?
But there is just one problem is equating this with NASA. NASA has, AFAIK, never done any research into deflecting asteroids and has never implemented or even proposed such a program.
Thought I'd do some checking on this and share with the class: B612 Foundation
We've been anticipating the conclusion of a contract we issued to Jet Propulsion Laboratory in early 2008, and it's now available. We asked JPL to analyze, in detail, the performance of a transponder equipped gravity tractor (t-GT) in determining the precise orbit of a NEO with which it has rendezvoused, and to evaluate the towing performance of the GT per se.
NASA's NEO Report to Congress (see #15 below) has stirred considerable controversy due to both its rejection of Congress' request for a recommended program to support the new Spaceguard Survey goal and it's technically flawed deflection analysis. The analytic work supporting the summary report to Congress is being withheld from public review by NASA despite it having been published as a 3-color glossy "Final Report" and distributed internally.
The bad news? While this all looks fine on paper, scientists haven't had a chance to try it in practice. And this is where NASA's report was supposed to come in. Congress directed the agency in 2005 to come up with a program, a budget to support it and an array of alternatives for preventing an asteroid impact.
But instead of coming up with a plan and budget to get the job done, the report bluntly stated that "due to current budget constraints, NASA cannot initiate a new program at this time."
Why did the space agency drop the ball? Like all government departments, it fears the dreaded "unfunded mandate." Congress has the habit of directing agencies to do something and then declining to give them the money to do so. In this case, Congress not only directed NASA to provide it with a recommended program but also asked for the estimated budget to support it. It was a left-handed way for the Congress to say to NASA that this is our priority like it or not. But for some reason NASA seems to have opted for a federal form of civil disobedience.
I think this ties in with NASA's, and specifically Administrator Griffin's, emphasis on manned missions over unmanned missions. I hope Obama replaces the man. Because, not having a space mission is a good excuse for the dinosaurs, we can't use that one.
Although I know many over thirtys who disagree, many younger people often do not consider it impolite to receive and send text messages in public or with company (within reason, it can't distract you completely).
But isn't the value of text messaging over voice calls is that you don't need to interrupt social conversations? I'll wait until the conversation is over before I check my text message. Why is it that people, even younger people (whatever the cut off for that is), feel like they must always act at the behest of their cell phones?
For me, when I send a text message, that implies that you needn't respond to it right away but at your soonest conveniance. I wonder if what you're speaking of isn't so much that they don't consider it impolite to interrupt a conversation to check their text message, but that they consider it a greater offense to not respond to a text message right away. I hope, later on in their lives, they learn to lose this habit quick unless you want to live as a stress ball for the rest of your life. For me, text messages isn't just more conveniant, safer (for driving), but also saves stress because you *don't* have to answer it right away.
And that's the biggest thing about cell phones. With landline phones, it was considered improper to ignore a phone call because it could be something important. But with cell phones, since we carry them everywhere we go, we have to learn to let go and not let it control us.
I think the real news is that the M3 is working and is confirming the results of other moon missions. This isn't so much important for double-checking that there really *is* iron on the moon, but more double-checking that the M3 is working and providing correct information. If the M3 sent back information that the moon's surface was composed of cheese-oxide, they'd probably want to recheck their instruments.
One thing I would like to know is whether this is iron ore that can be processed by a future lunar factory into metal? But the other interesting thing is that it looks like the mission of the M3 is to create a high-resolution mineral map of the moon, which is interesting to me as this would be very useful for possible exploitation of lunar resources in the future.
Anyway, I haven't heard of this mission before (sorry, I've only started to get back interested in astronomy recently) but I'm glad they're doing it.
"Obviously many missions before have found iron, but Chandrayaan-1 has reiterated the presence. We believe it is very significant because the mission has already fulfilled one of its objectives, which was to sight minerals. More is to come and it should be exciting if we can confirm the presence of uranium and other minerals,'' said an ISRO official.
Which would be extremely cool if we found uranium on the moon because of the possibility of nuclear energy on the moon. I know, we'll probably only exploit solar at first with the future lunar outpost, but still neat.
(BTW, I'm basically just spilling the thoughts that I'm sure anyone else is having when they read this stuff, I'm sure others will correct whatever mistaken thoughts I have.)
My sense is that the culture is very different here in the states, people generally frown on bicycles and there are too many rednecks who will think it will be funny to run someone off the road because they're riding a bicycle. Remember, it's a two lane highway, if someone's in the other lane they can't pass, there isn't much shoulder room. This is enough to put someone in a bad mood.
Yeah, technically a cyclist has the same rights as an automobile, but the reality is different. I won't want to have to sue someone from a wheelchair, even if I win the lawsuit.
I wish I could ride a bicycle to where I need to go, but between where I live and town is about five miles of 55+mph traffic without passing lanes. Check out Google Maps sometime, our road system isn't made for bikes.
You mean an orbit where the sun is always in view? Is that possible? It just seems that such an orbit would be way too slow and would fall into the atmosphere, as wouldn't it need to orbit the earth once per solar year?
Additionally, I don't know if a geostationary orbit is required or not, so that the energy beam doesn't need to move.
Slashdot Mirror
What you don't grasp is that whatever people spend their money on, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others, is the best choice precisely because it was made my them, free from coercion.
Therefore, according to your argument, any choice made free from coercion is the best choice. Let me say that again: your proposition is that any choice made free from coercion is the best choice.
So, no matter how much thought was put into that choice, or how much experience the choice was based on, or how much knowledge the choice was based on, or what state of consciousness the choice was made in, it is, according to you, the best choice, only because it was free from coercion.
If your own proposition is starting to sound strange to you, I congratulate you and welcome you back to reality. If it doesn't, I wish you luck in finding your liberatopia.
Secondary to that is that people know how best to spend the money that they earn.
A flawed premise if ever I've seen one. Find yourself a nation full of rational agents; there you can build your liberatopia.
It's about national security stupid. It means we're less dependent on OPEC and the King of Saudi Arabia. And, yeah, the cost of energy will probably decline somewhat too, but that's a perk.
But I disagree with the offsetting argument. The demand for energy is just going to go up to meet the increasing supply.
Your comment makes me wonder. Is Firefox really more bloated or is it just the size of modern web pages? It's common sense that Firefox has to load the content of open web pages into it's own memory store. Try opening smaller web pages if you want your memory back :)
Interesting. I'm running Debian Lenny on my Asus EEE 2 Surf with 256 MB and 2GB of disk space, and I still have room for more stuff.
It's about customization stupid*. That's the difference, you *can't* easily uninstall half the operating system on any version Windows like you can on Debian. Just so you know, I'm still running X Windows, xmonad, firefox, abiword, gnumeric, wxmaxima, emacs.
* I'm not calling you stupid :)
I think, these days, from the year that Tog wrote that article, your comment needs to be qualified. What he was talking about were primitive user interface elements: bolding, opening a file, saving a file, etc. But the qualification needs to be about expressability of the input method. So, if you are repeating the same or similar tasks over and over again, yeah it would be more productive to use the mouse. But, one may argue, if one is repeating the same task over and over again, that is something that should be automated anyway. Compare the key sequences for making every first letter of a sentence in a document a capital letter to the mouse sequence, and you might have a point. But if I can do a regexp search and replace, I'd have to use the key sequence. There is simply no mouse sequence that can do the equivalent; ultimately, the mouse isn't expressive enough. The mouse is expressive in dragging and dropping, and right-clicking (something that Apple isn't too fond of), but that's as far as you get. To get more expressive you need a full language by which you can give detailed commands to the computer. In 1989 people weren't thinking in that fashion.
But I don't think it's purely random either. It's all of those pants gnomes business plans out there that really make you wonder:
1. Provide a free service to upload and share videos!
2. ???
3. Profit!
1. Make a platform for people to send short messages to anyone who subscribes at once!
2. ???
3. Profit!
Like that.
All you need with a federated service like identi.ca is a small percentage of the participants to host a server. and those people just need a hosting account they can get out of their disposable income.
So you see the problem...
And we wonder why Linux can't seem to make inroads onto the desktop, when the headline and no small number of posters here are not at all subtle about looking down their noses at anyone who isn't dedicated enough to an ideology to intentionally cripple their machine's 3D performance.
I'm hoping this wasn't intentional. No, no one here hates 3D graphics. But we do hate the way things are in the Windows and Apple worlds. Really, if this is your attitude, what's the point of moving to GNU/Linux at all? Ah, choice right? Take that answer all the way down to it's consequences and you'll understand why people are intentionally crippling their machine's 3D performance. But that will require that you think beyond the shiny.
Face facts: 95% of people who use X do not and never will care about the ideology behind X for all X in Software. If you insist on demeaning them or inconveniencing them with your ideology, they won't use your software. I'm going to go play a 3D game that's not a slideshow now...
How is this even relevant? The free software movement isn't about a popularity contest.
I suggest you learn a little bit more about this "ideology" you're talking about and why it's been shaking things up for so long.
I don't know why this kind of thing keeps getting modded up. At this point, I don't even think it matters what the "people just want stuff to work" posters think. The difference is between those who understand what free software philosophy is and why it is important, and those who don't.
But then I think this really comes from the consumerist mentality, from people who want results in exchange for $$$, but don't realize how crappy computing really is when you're at the behest of companies who depend on locking down and restricting their customer's systems for their very livelihood. That is, ultimately, what the software industry amounts to, and is really the only way it can thrive.
So, who cares about binary drivers? That's a short-sighted question by someone who can't fucking see the big picture.
I don't understand. Why can't you make an unmanned aircraft with stealth technology? Or an unmanned aircraft that is as fast as, or even faster, than the F22? You're assuming that manned aircraft are necessarily faster and only manned aircraft can be cloaked from radar/infrared. I don't know a lot about air combat so could you explain why this is so?
Your crazy. My money is the result of me contracting out my labor to others.
Where do you think they got *their* money from?
You don't think people pay to drive on roads? They do every time they fill up.
They are paying for gas, not roads. Gas stations don't use that money to pay for the road system.
Key word *choice*. Others lack of bathing is the reason I chose to drive. Should I be forced to buy them showers? Yes, certain factors cause us to make voluntary economic choices, that's good.. the problems start occurring when opinionated bastards like yourself force others to pay for things you like at gun point all because you make a certain choice and they don't. You like the bus then YOU pay for it and stop having your tax goons take my money to do it, forcing others to pay for something you like is barbaric and wrong.
Wow, now I'm an opinionated bastard. Rid yourself of your overzealous ideology and then you might be able to look at things a bit more deeply.
First off.. its my money, I should be able to do with it what I want.
Not entirely. It's a product of an economy that you've had a marginal affect on.
Secondly.. why does government even take care of roads at all?
Not profitable.
Thirdly.. I don't even take the bus, why should I pay for it?
Because your vehicle out on the roads is part of the reason people choose to take the bus.
You've got me wondering, though. What if we have the opposite problem than we expect, what if algae-farming proves [i]too[/i] successful and we're overproducing algae just like we're not overproducing oil. Then, instead of too much carbon being released from the atmosphere, what if too much carbon is taken [i]out[/i] of the atmosphere? Will vegetation around the planet begin suffocating from too little carbon dioxide?
Just wanted to speak up in agreement with your post. Our robots are taking over the solar system :)
But it's cheating when you set your browser to use a 6 pt font.
Ah, Slashdot, where I can pretend I'm still 15 :)
But there is just one problem is equating this with NASA. NASA has, AFAIK, never done any research into deflecting asteroids and has never implemented or even proposed such a program.
Thought I'd do some checking on this and share with the class:
B612 Foundation
We've been anticipating the conclusion of a contract we issued to Jet Propulsion Laboratory in early 2008, and it's now available. We asked JPL to analyze, in detail, the performance of a transponder equipped gravity tractor (t-GT) in determining the precise orbit of a NEO with which it has rendezvoused, and to evaluate the towing performance of the GT per se.
And elsewhere on their site:
NASA's NEO Report to Congress (see #15 below) has stirred considerable controversy due to both its rejection of Congress' request for a recommended program to support the new Spaceguard Survey goal and it's technically flawed deflection analysis. The analytic work supporting the summary report to Congress is being withheld from public review by NASA despite it having been published as a 3-color glossy "Final Report" and distributed internally.
The sky is falling, really:
The bad news? While this all looks fine on paper, scientists haven't had a chance to try it in practice. And this is where NASA's report was supposed to come in. Congress directed the agency in 2005 to come up with a program, a budget to support it and an array of alternatives for preventing an asteroid impact.
But instead of coming up with a plan and budget to get the job done, the report bluntly stated that "due to current budget constraints, NASA cannot initiate a new program at this time."
Why did the space agency drop the ball? Like all government departments, it fears the dreaded "unfunded mandate." Congress has the habit of directing agencies to do something and then declining to give them the money to do so. In this case, Congress not only directed NASA to provide it with a recommended program but also asked for the estimated budget to support it. It was a left-handed way for the Congress to say to NASA that this is our priority like it or not. But for some reason NASA seems to have opted for a federal form of civil disobedience.
I think this ties in with NASA's, and specifically Administrator Griffin's, emphasis on manned missions over unmanned missions. I hope Obama replaces the man. Because, not having a space mission is a good excuse for the dinosaurs, we can't use that one.
During the leap second, is it considered 2008 and 1/2?
Although I know many over thirtys who disagree, many younger people often do not consider it impolite to receive and send text messages in public or with company (within reason, it can't distract you completely).
But isn't the value of text messaging over voice calls is that you don't need to interrupt social conversations? I'll wait until the conversation is over before I check my text message. Why is it that people, even younger people (whatever the cut off for that is), feel like they must always act at the behest of their cell phones?
For me, when I send a text message, that implies that you needn't respond to it right away but at your soonest conveniance. I wonder if what you're speaking of isn't so much that they don't consider it impolite to interrupt a conversation to check their text message, but that they consider it a greater offense to not respond to a text message right away. I hope, later on in their lives, they learn to lose this habit quick unless you want to live as a stress ball for the rest of your life. For me, text messages isn't just more conveniant, safer (for driving), but also saves stress because you *don't* have to answer it right away.
And that's the biggest thing about cell phones. With landline phones, it was considered improper to ignore a phone call because it could be something important. But with cell phones, since we carry them everywhere we go, we have to learn to let go and not let it control us.
I think the real news is that the M3 is working and is confirming the results of other moon missions. This isn't so much important for double-checking that there really *is* iron on the moon, but more double-checking that the M3 is working and providing correct information. If the M3 sent back information that the moon's surface was composed of cheese-oxide, they'd probably want to recheck their instruments.
One thing I would like to know is whether this is iron ore that can be processed by a future lunar factory into metal? But the other interesting thing is that it looks like the mission of the M3 is to create a high-resolution mineral map of the moon, which is interesting to me as this would be very useful for possible exploitation of lunar resources in the future.
Anyway, I haven't heard of this mission before (sorry, I've only started to get back interested in astronomy recently) but I'm glad they're doing it.
Here's some links I've found:
NASA's page on the M3
A Space Spin article
Wikipedia on Chandrayaan
Also, from TFA:
"Obviously many missions before have found iron, but Chandrayaan-1 has reiterated the presence. We believe it is very significant because the mission has already fulfilled one of its objectives, which was to sight minerals. More is to come and it should be exciting if we can confirm the presence of uranium and other minerals,'' said an ISRO official.
Which would be extremely cool if we found uranium on the moon because of the possibility of nuclear energy on the moon. I know, we'll probably only exploit solar at first with the future lunar outpost, but still neat.
(BTW, I'm basically just spilling the thoughts that I'm sure anyone else is having when they read this stuff, I'm sure others will correct whatever mistaken thoughts I have.)
Why the hell does someone in every country think "Let's censor internet!"?
It usually happens after the first time someone tricks them into clicking on a goatse-like link.
My sense is that the culture is very different here in the states, people generally frown on bicycles and there are too many rednecks who will think it will be funny to run someone off the road because they're riding a bicycle. Remember, it's a two lane highway, if someone's in the other lane they can't pass, there isn't much shoulder room. This is enough to put someone in a bad mood.
Yeah, technically a cyclist has the same rights as an automobile, but the reality is different. I won't want to have to sue someone from a wheelchair, even if I win the lawsuit.
I wish I could ride a bicycle to where I need to go, but between where I live and town is about five miles of 55+mph traffic without passing lanes. Check out Google Maps sometime, our road system isn't made for bikes.
=3OE=
Sorry, dude? That's just gross. Some of us browse slashdot at work you know!
You mean an orbit where the sun is always in view? Is that possible? It just seems that such an orbit would be way too slow and would fall into the atmosphere, as wouldn't it need to orbit the earth once per solar year?
Additionally, I don't know if a geostationary orbit is required or not, so that the energy beam doesn't need to move.