Yes, but what about those of us who don't write code with bugs? What do we need all that extra crap for? -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
For those who don't know, it is a novel by Greg Egan about an alternate reality created simply by encoding the rules of its existence in cellular automata. It's a great read if you're into this sort of stuff. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Notice the word "owned", which implies property, which is probably compatible with whatever ideological notions you seem to have. Or does the very idea that everyone, from the CEO to the mailboy, should have the same motive to work hard and succeed cause too much cognative dissonace for you? -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
The main limitiation is the right of francise in choosing the government. You have to be a veteran.
You don't understand the implications of that? To change or influence your government's policies, you must first submit yourself to that government's military? I think you would find that the casulties in training accidents will tend to center around political troublemakers, as would the "volunteers" for dangerous missions. And you can forget about due process, this is the military, after all.
What do you think this "benign" dictatorship would do if one were to set up a competing government based on some obscure philosophy like, you know, actual democracy? Is their any room for alternatives when the foundation of their power rests on the fact non-veterans have no voice? -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Re:United Space Mine Workers Union Local #6
on
On Asteroid Mining
·
· Score: 1
And you're several million kilometers away from any state's military after you seize control from the Company. And by gosh, you're looking down at them from the top of an immense gravity well, and you've got asteroids... -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
I think in Europe, people are a little more tolerant to others moving to their countries, and are aware of the fact that their country is not the only one in the world.
Hardly. Both France and Germany have very active and militant anti-immigrant political parties. And Austria recently elected a government that, from what I've read, seems somewhere between Pat Buchanan and David Duke on the political spectrum.
It's probably the same as the hypocrisy in the way people think of Canada and Mexico in the US. You're only considered an immigrant if you're poor, the wrong color, and speak the wrong language.
-- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
That is actually a very good idea, that is, write a censoring proxy that denies access to French-language webpages, or a filter that alters French content in a mocking way. Some French can be awfully uptight about their langauge, and they are likely to be the same sort of busybodies who would support this action against Yahoo.
And it wouldn't fail for the reason censorware fails, because it would actually analyze the content of the page, and not simply depend on a URL database or look for keywords. It's a lot easier to recognize French text than it is to tell the Starr Report from actual pr0n. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Oops, actually it was page 38 where he most clearly implied that Johansen is a liar and dismissed the Linux defense:
Mr. Johansen is a very talented young man and a memebr of a well known hacker group who viewed "cracking" CSS as an end it [heh, typo] itself and a means of demonstrating his talent and who fully expected that the user of DeCSS would not be confined to Linux machines. Hence, the Court finds that Mr. Johansen and the others who actually did develop DeCSS did not do so soley for the purpose of making a Linux DVD player if, indeed, developing a Linux-based DVD player was among their purposes. Accordingly, the reverse engineering exception to the DMCA has no application here.
-- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
I'm impressed that your's is the only post to have noticed the error. Usually there are a dozen pedantic know-it-alls who point out misspellings and other such gaffs before the First Poster boys are done. I guess Saturdays are slow. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
He's a smart guy, no doubt about it. I just wish he wasn't wrong.
He may me smart, for someone trained in law, but the average slashdotter has better reasoning skills (or integrity).
He practically called Jon Johansen a liar [1], claiming that he wrote DeCSS to pirate DVDs, and that since it was a tool of piracy, the reverse engineering provisions of the DMCA do not provide a defense, regardless of the fact that there are legitimate uses for such a tool. [2]
And the whole thing with that disease analogy[3], what the fuck was he smoking? Why couldn't he just liken it to a military "containment" policy, which is basically what he was saying: in order to protect society's (er, the studio's) interests, we must smack down these pirates and their programs where ever they surface, like the dirty little subversives they are. But I guess that wouldn't be politik, with the first amendment and all.
Kaplan may be trying to look like the impartial nice guy, be he'll always be a big fucking wanker because of this ruling. Remember, Malda, behind his words are men with the guns ready to take everything away from you because you want to watch a fucking movie on a piece of equipment not sactioned by the CCA.
[1] Universal vs. Reimerdes [pdf], p.35
[2] p.37
[3] p.61 -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Not only that, the "Wizard" was a midget! How cool is that!?
Anyway, it didn't last very long, and even as a ten-year-old I could tell that it sucked.
Oh wow, according to IMDB, the actor was in Time Bandits, and committed suicide in 1990!
The coolest current show in that vein C.S.I., which stands for "crime scene investigator". It's a cop show for people who think. Damn shame it comes on Fridays, though. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Yes, it is bullshit, but at least my bullshit is looking outwards, towards the world as it exists (and could be), and not inwards towards some constructed fantasy called the human condition.
If anything, nihilism that has given me this outlook, for I see no intrinsic difference between Pro Wrestling and "great literature", except the scope of the portrayed conflict and the competance in the fiction's execution. Since my values are an aesthetic choice, and my reason is simply the attempt to reconcile those values (prejudices) with what I perceive, I choose the fiction that does the most to challenge my preconceptions, since that is the way things stay interesting. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Leave it to Katz to present what might be a decent novel about scientists into a sappy, self-absorbed, postmodernist work of literature.
Kids, here's a tip from Uncle 3735928559: if you want to read stuff about scientists that isn't a soap opera, go to the section in the bookstore labeled "science fiction/fantasy". It's seperated from the dreck for your convience, but you'll still have to do some filtering. Look for names like Greg Egan, Gregory Benford, David Brin, Venor Vinge. These guys are honest-to-god scientists, so they write about what scientists like to think about. No, not about kissing ass to get tenure, or who's screwing who among the faculty, no, what they like to think about: big ideas. Important ideas. Stuff that matters.
You know, stuff like the structure of universe, the course of human history, the rolling advance of technology, the reasoning of ethics, and the nature of existence. It's not always very serious, either. In fact, most of the time it's pretty damn fun! You won't find much self-absorbed whining to drag it down like in other books. These books are to the point and written with vivid imagination. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Why is this "mob rule" meme so attractive to some people?
Here is an illustration, with the same level of cynicism, of how stupid that meme is:
Democracy: a majority telling the minority "Do what we say, or else..."
Everything but democracy: a minority tell everyone else "Do what we say, or else..."
Now which choice is more attractive?
"Oh", but you say, "that is a false model! We have rights to protect us from the tyranny of elites and the tyranny of mob rule!"
I'm sorry, were do you think those rights come from? You may claim them, but other people don't have to respect them. The only reason you have the illusion of rights is because the people you associate with believe they have the same rights as you do. All rights, all law, everything that makes civilisation "civil" is the result of a consesus among people. Democracy is the formalization of that consensus.
There are many forms of democracy, just like any any theory political organization. You don't even have to vote for democracy to happen.
Maybe this can be a viable way to run a business, maybe it can't. It really depends on who is involved. A bunch of control freaks aren't going to do too well. But people like those involved in some of the more successful open source projects could do very well. If there is one thing you could say about "geeks" is that we respect competence. We let those lead who prove themselves worthy. We defer decisions to those who know what the hell they're doing. The traditional business world could learn a few things from us.
(You know, the business world, the place where Dilbert is not so much a parody but a representation of real-life events, only exaggerated and improbably occuring close together). -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Yea, me too. I used it to find mp3s, long before that "Nappy" thing came around. The Net was much nicer place back in the good ol' days. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Then they should patent the specific medical techniques that make use of the genes, not lay claim to the genes themselves.
As a Libertairan, I'm sure you recognize that there is no such thing as "cruel" in business, only legal or illegal. If they take a risk on dubious patents, they've got nobody to blame but themselves. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
It has, because its full of cozy little myths and stories that appeal to children. How many other religions can compete with "baby Jesus"?
Seriously, Unix has a natural appeal to programmers the same way sports cars have a natural appeal to grease monkeys. Just 'cause it's a stereotypes doesn't make it less true, on average.
You know, the thing that bugs me more than zealotry is blind anti-zealotry, attributing zealotry where none exists. "Oh, look at me! I have contrarian opinion! I'm not sheep like the rest of you!" And people mod it up as if it makes them special too. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
What the hell are you talking about? There have been decent Java books from the beginning, published by Sun and O'Reilly. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
I've never seen this idea expressed so bluntly yet eloquently. Most of the people who harp about unintended consequences really have an irrational anti-technology and anti-science agenda (you know, the kind of people who use phrases like "mother earth" and "mankind's hubris" without humor or irony). I'm glad to see Sterling putting some sense back in the debate.
But I would say this is only half of the equation. This kind of thinking leads to paranoia that can be every bit is crippling and irrational as that of a mystical ideology. Bill Joy's recent rant in Wired comes to mind. Let me add my corollary to Sterling's design principle:
Anyone who abandons a dangerous product because it may become a tool of evil is an irresponsible coward. The design process of a dangerous product is incomplete until it takes into consideration what could be done with that product by those who are opposed to a tyrant wielding a product of equal or greater power. The product's very conceptualization assures that such power can and will exist, so it must be brought forth so that this power can be distributed equally. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Re:voting from the comfort of your own home -bad
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 2
I read that in Florida you must have a legimiate execuse to use an absantee ballot, such as being out of state at the time or being physically unable to attend a voting booth.
Besides, the rarity of the situation makes it a fairly useless as a form of blackmail. Your boss is likely to go to jail, you are only likely to lose your job. The risk to him is not worth a single vote.
If everyone could vote from their office, however, the risk/payoff ratio begins to change. And if online voting becomes the norm, it will be much harder to prove coercion is involved. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
The arrows next the those buttons on ATM machines seems like they'd be unambigous too, but I'm still glad I know enough Spanish to get my money out.
I wonder how likely it was that the cards didn't line up correctly. That could explain a lot of the double votes. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
So what should happen to the wealth? Should it go to the government? To the "poor" or "deserving" (whoever they are)? Should the accomplishments of a life be destroyed on that person's death?
Yes (to all and none of your examples). That decision as is arbitrary as giving it to your children. You only own property because everyone else concedes that you do. Your property will go to whomever the system deems it should go.
In what way is that not leeching? You're using someone else's original thoughts without their permission. It's no different from stealing electricity from the power company, time from the phone company, or any other theft of a service.
I don't own my thoughts, and I laugh at your pitiful assertion that you own yours. I just appropriated your speech in an effort to negate its value. Are you gonna sue me? Or do you feel the First Amendment is an acceptable "backdoor" to your "property" rights? -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Is it really property if you can't sell/trade it? Don't confuse territory with property.
But aside from that, this doesn't really refute the original poster's assertion, that property is a social construct.
Anyone who claims "natural rights" or "rights by God" is grasping at straws. When it comes down to bare essentials, you own whatever you can keep your hands on, just like in the natural world. The only difference is we humans are capable of organizing rules to determine who controls scarce resources, rather than fighting each other like animals. Society believes in property rights because the average individual believes he has more to gain by them, even if others stand to gain more. If someday this is no longer true, then the system better change, or violence will eventually make it change.
Ever heard of the feudal system?
Exactly.;-) -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but what about those of us who don't write code with bugs? What do we need all that extra crap for?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Cool, so now Permutation City can be real?
For those who don't know, it is a novel by Greg Egan about an alternate reality created simply by encoding the rules of its existence in cellular automata. It's a great read if you're into this sort of stuff.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Notice the word "owned", which implies property, which is probably compatible with whatever ideological notions you seem to have. Or does the very idea that everyone, from the CEO to the mailboy, should have the same motive to work hard and succeed cause too much cognative dissonace for you?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
The main limitiation is the right of francise in choosing the government. You have to be a veteran.
You don't understand the implications of that? To change or influence your government's policies, you must first submit yourself to that government's military? I think you would find that the casulties in training accidents will tend to center around political troublemakers, as would the "volunteers" for dangerous missions. And you can forget about due process, this is the military, after all.
What do you think this "benign" dictatorship would do if one were to set up a competing government based on some obscure philosophy like, you know, actual democracy? Is their any room for alternatives when the foundation of their power rests on the fact non-veterans have no voice?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
And you're several million kilometers away from any state's military after you seize control from the Company. And by gosh, you're looking down at them from the top of an immense gravity well, and you've got asteroids...
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
I think in Europe, people are a little more tolerant to others moving to their countries, and are aware of the fact that their country is not the only one in the world.
Hardly. Both France and Germany have very active and militant anti-immigrant political parties. And Austria recently elected a government that, from what I've read, seems somewhere between Pat Buchanan and David Duke on the political spectrum.
It's probably the same as the hypocrisy in the way people think of Canada and Mexico in the US. You're only considered an immigrant if you're poor, the wrong color, and speak the wrong language.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Because I think I can get one of those patents for myself. It will make me very wealthy.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
'tis not so much a vast majority, but a minority that's vast...
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
That is actually a very good idea, that is, write a censoring proxy that denies access to French-language webpages, or a filter that alters French content in a mocking way. Some French can be awfully uptight about their langauge, and they are likely to be the same sort of busybodies who would support this action against Yahoo.
And it wouldn't fail for the reason censorware fails, because it would actually analyze the content of the page, and not simply depend on a URL database or look for keywords. It's a lot easier to recognize French text than it is to tell the Starr Report from actual pr0n.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
I'm impressed that your's is the only post to have noticed the error. Usually there are a dozen pedantic know-it-alls who point out misspellings and other such gaffs before the First Poster boys are done. I guess Saturdays are slow.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
He's a smart guy, no doubt about it. I just wish he wasn't wrong.
He may me smart, for someone trained in law, but the average slashdotter has better reasoning skills (or integrity).
He practically called Jon Johansen a liar [1], claiming that he wrote DeCSS to pirate DVDs, and that since it was a tool of piracy, the reverse engineering provisions of the DMCA do not provide a defense, regardless of the fact that there are legitimate uses for such a tool. [2]
And the whole thing with that disease analogy[3], what the fuck was he smoking? Why couldn't he just liken it to a military "containment" policy, which is basically what he was saying: in order to protect society's (er, the studio's) interests, we must smack down these pirates and their programs where ever they surface, like the dirty little subversives they are. But I guess that wouldn't be politik, with the first amendment and all.
Kaplan may be trying to look like the impartial nice guy, be he'll always be a big fucking wanker because of this ruling. Remember, Malda, behind his words are men with the guns ready to take everything away from you because you want to watch a fucking movie on a piece of equipment not sactioned by the CCA.
[1] Universal vs. Reimerdes [pdf], p.35
[2] p.37
[3] p.61
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Not only that, the "Wizard" was a midget! How cool is that!?
Anyway, it didn't last very long, and even as a ten-year-old I could tell that it sucked.
Oh wow, according to IMDB, the actor was in Time Bandits, and committed suicide in 1990!
The coolest current show in that vein C.S.I., which stands for "crime scene investigator". It's a cop show for people who think. Damn shame it comes on Fridays, though.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Yes, it is bullshit, but at least my bullshit is looking outwards, towards the world as it exists (and could be), and not inwards towards some constructed fantasy called the human condition.
If anything, nihilism that has given me this outlook, for I see no intrinsic difference between Pro Wrestling and "great literature", except the scope of the portrayed conflict and the competance in the fiction's execution. Since my values are an aesthetic choice, and my reason is simply the attempt to reconcile those values (prejudices) with what I perceive, I choose the fiction that does the most to challenge my preconceptions, since that is the way things stay interesting.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Leave it to Katz to present what might be a decent novel about scientists into a sappy, self-absorbed, postmodernist work of literature.
Kids, here's a tip from Uncle 3735928559: if you want to read stuff about scientists that isn't a soap opera, go to the section in the bookstore labeled "science fiction/fantasy". It's seperated from the dreck for your convience, but you'll still have to do some filtering. Look for names like Greg Egan, Gregory Benford, David Brin, Venor Vinge. These guys are honest-to-god scientists, so they write about what scientists like to think about. No, not about kissing ass to get tenure, or who's screwing who among the faculty, no, what they like to think about: big ideas. Important ideas. Stuff that matters.
You know, stuff like the structure of universe, the course of human history, the rolling advance of technology, the reasoning of ethics, and the nature of existence. It's not always very serious, either. In fact, most of the time it's pretty damn fun! You won't find much self-absorbed whining to drag it down like in other books. These books are to the point and written with vivid imagination.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Why is this "mob rule" meme so attractive to some people?
Here is an illustration, with the same level of cynicism, of how stupid that meme is:
Democracy: a majority telling the minority "Do what we say, or else..."
Everything but democracy: a minority tell everyone else "Do what we say, or else..."
Now which choice is more attractive?
"Oh", but you say, "that is a false model! We have rights to protect us from the tyranny of elites and the tyranny of mob rule!"
I'm sorry, were do you think those rights come from? You may claim them, but other people don't have to respect them. The only reason you have the illusion of rights is because the people you associate with believe they have the same rights as you do. All rights, all law, everything that makes civilisation "civil" is the result of a consesus among people. Democracy is the formalization of that consensus.
There are many forms of democracy, just like any any theory political organization. You don't even have to vote for democracy to happen.
Maybe this can be a viable way to run a business, maybe it can't. It really depends on who is involved. A bunch of control freaks aren't going to do too well. But people like those involved in some of the more successful open source projects could do very well. If there is one thing you could say about "geeks" is that we respect competence. We let those lead who prove themselves worthy. We defer decisions to those who know what the hell they're doing. The traditional business world could learn a few things from us.
(You know, the business world, the place where Dilbert is not so much a parody but a representation of real-life events, only exaggerated and improbably occuring close together).
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Yea, me too. I used it to find mp3s, long before that "Nappy" thing came around. The Net was much nicer place back in the good ol' days.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Then they should patent the specific medical techniques that make use of the genes, not lay claim to the genes themselves.
As a Libertairan, I'm sure you recognize that there is no such thing as "cruel" in business, only legal or illegal. If they take a risk on dubious patents, they've got nobody to blame but themselves.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
It has, because its full of cozy little myths and stories that appeal to children. How many other religions can compete with "baby Jesus"?
Seriously, Unix has a natural appeal to programmers the same way sports cars have a natural appeal to grease monkeys. Just 'cause it's a stereotypes doesn't make it less true, on average.
You know, the thing that bugs me more than zealotry is blind anti-zealotry, attributing zealotry where none exists. "Oh, look at me! I have contrarian opinion! I'm not sheep like the rest of you!" And people mod it up as if it makes them special too.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
What the hell are you talking about? There have been decent Java books from the beginning, published by Sun and O'Reilly.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
I've never seen this idea expressed so bluntly yet eloquently. Most of the people who harp about unintended consequences really have an irrational anti-technology and anti-science agenda (you know, the kind of people who use phrases like "mother earth" and "mankind's hubris" without humor or irony). I'm glad to see Sterling putting some sense back in the debate.
But I would say this is only half of the equation. This kind of thinking leads to paranoia that can be every bit is crippling and irrational as that of a mystical ideology. Bill Joy's recent rant in Wired comes to mind. Let me add my corollary to Sterling's design principle:
Anyone who abandons a dangerous product because it may become a tool of evil is an irresponsible coward. The design process of a dangerous product is incomplete until it takes into consideration what could be done with that product by those who are opposed to a tyrant wielding a product of equal or greater power. The product's very conceptualization assures that such power can and will exist, so it must be brought forth so that this power can be distributed equally.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
I read that in Florida you must have a legimiate execuse to use an absantee ballot, such as being out of state at the time or being physically unable to attend a voting booth.
Besides, the rarity of the situation makes it a fairly useless as a form of blackmail. Your boss is likely to go to jail, you are only likely to lose your job. The risk to him is not worth a single vote.
If everyone could vote from their office, however, the risk/payoff ratio begins to change. And if online voting becomes the norm, it will be much harder to prove coercion is involved.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
The arrows next the those buttons on ATM machines seems like they'd be unambigous too, but I'm still glad I know enough Spanish to get my money out.
I wonder how likely it was that the cards didn't line up correctly. That could explain a lot of the double votes.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
So what should happen to the wealth? Should it go to the government? To the "poor" or "deserving" (whoever they are)? Should the accomplishments of a life be destroyed on that person's death?
Yes (to all and none of your examples). That decision as is arbitrary as giving it to your children. You only own property because everyone else concedes that you do. Your property will go to whomever the system deems it should go.
In what way is that not leeching? You're using someone else's original thoughts without their permission. It's no different from stealing electricity from the power company, time from the phone company, or any other theft of a service.
I don't own my thoughts, and I laugh at your pitiful assertion that you own yours. I just appropriated your speech in an effort to negate its value. Are you gonna sue me? Or do you feel the First Amendment is an acceptable "backdoor" to your "property" rights?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Is it really property if you can't sell/trade it? Don't confuse territory with property.
;-)
But aside from that, this doesn't really refute the original poster's assertion, that property is a social construct.
Anyone who claims "natural rights" or "rights by God" is grasping at straws. When it comes down to bare essentials, you own whatever you can keep your hands on, just like in the natural world. The only difference is we humans are capable of organizing rules to determine who controls scarce resources, rather than fighting each other like animals. Society believes in property rights because the average individual believes he has more to gain by them, even if others stand to gain more. If someday this is no longer true, then the system better change, or violence will eventually make it change.
Ever heard of the feudal system?
Exactly.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom