Some capitalist systems will sometimes gravitate, slowly and incrementally, towards socialism. One need only look at US farm policy to find and example.
I could be wrong here - and please correct me if I am - but wasn't the current farm policy first begun as a response to the Depression, so that all the farmers would not have so much surplus driving prices down and themselves out of business? And somehow I don't think "incremental" really describes the Depression or the New Deal.
1. It allows people to keep what they have earned. Any system which does not is essentially slavery.
I suppose this depends on your view of our role here on Earth. Personally, I think we're here to advance the species. However, in order to keep the species going through the hard years, when we didn't have the capability to fuck the Earth like we do now, we had "ourselves" placed above "everyone" in our priorities. This is simple survival of the fittest, but isn't it time we moved beyond that and stopped being selfish? That you started thinking about the future and not your future?
2. It generates prosperity and promotes the general welfare better than any system yet conceived. By "prosperity", I mean fewer people starving, and more people providing for their families.
One key quibble with this one: I would replace "conceived" with "implemented." You know what they say about fact and theory..
3. It is a system in which the only legal means of enriching yourself is by serving the needs and desires of others, either by your labor, or by investing your property.
It is a system in which the only legal means of enriching yourself have absolutely no care for a)morality, and b)the future past the time it affects you. We all share responsibility for what happens down the road (with the people who will live then), and it's blind of us not to see it. The saying "nature or nurture" applies to cultures, too: What environment created it? (us). How does it live? (by our children, X generations down the road).
Are there flaws in this system? Yes, many. For one thing, the system completely fails if people of means fail to embrace their civic duties of charity and compassion.
No shit. Capitalists are always talking about providing "incentives" for this or that - if you're so concerned about morality, why the fuck aren't there any "incentives" for it built into your economic system?
Has a more moral one been offered? Not yet. Maybe one will someday, but it will not be communism, which forces people to enjoy no reward for greater efforts and risks... nor socialism, which forces people for forfeit all the rewards of their efforts to the state in exchange for a meager subsistence.
Don't judge poor implementations of a concept for the real thing. The idea behind "everyone benefits equally" is that everyone benefits, not just those quick enough to drop their morals and abuse their fellow beings (and descendants) to get rich now. I think socialism is a workable system - if only people can get past their selfish nature and work together for everyone's good.
This is like arguing over whether a computer naturally is predisposed towards Linux or Windows. It ALL depends on the child, the software they use, and how they use it - you simply cannot make an accurate blanket statement. Saying that a computer makes kids smarter or that it makes them dumber is saying the same about a blank sheet of paper.
This is something that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Overarching assumptions serve no purpose other than helping the sheep reach a consensus.
"None of SDMI's methods stopped Felton, except the one involving potential litigation."
This seems to be the common wisdom here. Think the RIAA/MPAA will finally take notice of this lesson now that it's been attached to a major PR problem? We can only hope.
Disclaimer: The quotes might be slightly off. I'm not perfect.
On the other hand, the article wasn't too clear on just the degree of dependance the hearts would have on outside sources. If they're only transmitting information out, this should be fine (except for maybe privacy concerns, that is). But near the end, where it talked about "remote patient management"...
I dunno. It'll be interesting, though, to see how it turns out, and how much rampant fear there is of "Internet hackers."
Someone with more experience please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this similar in some aspects to a Turing machine? And considering how flexible one of those is.. this could end up being some very useful technology. (Is technology the right word?)
"..but the only required data point on the product activation screen is the country you're in."
I admittedly don't know if the activation process makes you dialup to your normal ISP or directly to Microsoft, but if you're dialing up to Microsft, they now have a phone number (and all the data that they can find with that) to enter into their customer database.
And even if you aren't dialing up directly to them, they'll still have your IP. Who knows who will get their hands on that information? Can you imagine if the people who got into the Microsoft computers had gotten their hands on a complete list of the IP addresses of the users of all Microsoft products (complete with their traditional gaping security defects..).
The information average users need to be worried about isn't the information you enter into your screen. It's the stuff that they don't even realize they're giving away. On the other hand.. if it means Microsoft has a complete profile of them when they call tech support, maybe they won't care?
I know a lot of people whose big reason for not at least giving some distro of Linux a try is that they can't play their games on it.
But it's not just actually finding a copy of the game under Linux and running it, I think it's also keeping the drivers updated and patches and the other assorted things that reduce the fun of PC gaming. Not that these things would necessarily be harder under Linux - but just that they're bad enough with windows, and people assume that they're going to have the same problems, except worse, under a non-Windows OS.
I loved Elite Force, which really made you feel as if you were part of a story. This is a good thing if you're in certain moods. If you find yourself skipping the cutscenes to get to the shooting, perhaps you ought to be playing..
Serious Sam - which comes out, I believe, early in March. Pure shoot-em-up; the story is completely irrelevant. I'm looking forward to that one too.
It all boils down to your mood - do you want to think and feel? Or just get pumped full of adrenaline and twitch? Both are appropriate sometimes. I'd much rather play Elite Force when I'm in a good, active mood, and I'd much rather play Serious Sam when I'm pissed.
Story in non-FPS games, I haven't quite considered yet. (Ok, fine. I haven't quite considered these types of games much at all, though RPGs and RTSs are both also fun at times. Usually when you want to think).
Anyway, enough rambling. Diversity in games. Every game should have an intended mood that it causes, and a mood you need to play well; simply match the game to the mood and have a great time fragging.
Slashdot Mirror
Some capitalist systems will sometimes gravitate, slowly and incrementally, towards socialism. One need only look at US farm policy to find and example.
I could be wrong here - and please correct me if I am - but wasn't the current farm policy first begun as a response to the Depression, so that all the farmers would not have so much surplus driving prices down and themselves out of business? And somehow I don't think "incremental" really describes the Depression or the New Deal.
1. It allows people to keep what they have earned. Any system which does not is essentially slavery.
I suppose this depends on your view of our role here on Earth. Personally, I think we're here to advance the species. However, in order to keep the species going through the hard years, when we didn't have the capability to fuck the Earth like we do now, we had "ourselves" placed above "everyone" in our priorities. This is simple survival of the fittest, but isn't it time we moved beyond that and stopped being selfish? That you started thinking about the future and not your future?
2. It generates prosperity and promotes the general welfare better than any system yet conceived. By "prosperity", I mean fewer people starving, and more people providing for their families.
One key quibble with this one: I would replace "conceived" with "implemented." You know what they say about fact and theory..
3. It is a system in which the only legal means of enriching yourself is by serving the needs and desires of others, either by your labor, or by investing your property.
It is a system in which the only legal means of enriching yourself have absolutely no care for a)morality, and b)the future past the time it affects you. We all share responsibility for what happens down the road (with the people who will live then), and it's blind of us not to see it. The saying "nature or nurture" applies to cultures, too: What environment created it? (us). How does it live? (by our children, X generations down the road).
Are there flaws in this system? Yes, many. For one thing, the system completely fails if people of means fail to embrace their civic duties of charity and compassion.
No shit. Capitalists are always talking about providing "incentives" for this or that - if you're so concerned about morality, why the fuck aren't there any "incentives" for it built into your economic system?
Has a more moral one been offered? Not yet. Maybe one will someday, but it will not be communism, which forces people to enjoy no reward for greater efforts and risks... nor socialism, which forces people for forfeit all the rewards of their efforts to the state in exchange for a meager subsistence.
Don't judge poor implementations of a concept for the real thing. The idea behind "everyone benefits equally" is that everyone benefits, not just those quick enough to drop their morals and abuse their fellow beings (and descendants) to get rich now. I think socialism is a workable system - if only people can get past their selfish nature and work together for everyone's good.
This is like arguing over whether a computer naturally is predisposed towards Linux or Windows. It ALL depends on the child, the software they use, and how they use it - you simply cannot make an accurate blanket statement. Saying that a computer makes kids smarter or that it makes them dumber is saying the same about a blank sheet of paper.
This is something that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Overarching assumptions serve no purpose other than helping the sheep reach a consensus.
"None of SDMI's methods stopped Felton, except the one involving potential litigation."
This seems to be the common wisdom here. Think the RIAA/MPAA will finally take notice of this lesson now that it's been attached to a major PR problem? We can only hope.
Disclaimer: The quotes might be slightly off. I'm not perfect.
But cell phones are safe! Nokia payed RJR to say so.
:)
Errr...
Or something like that, anyways.
The above is not intended to be taken seriously and the poster should not be sued for.. anything. Thanks
Can you say "Fatal System Crash"?
On the other hand, the article wasn't too clear on just the degree of dependance the hearts would have on outside sources. If they're only transmitting information out, this should be fine (except for maybe privacy concerns, that is). But near the end, where it talked about "remote patient management"...
I dunno. It'll be interesting, though, to see how it turns out, and how much rampant fear there is of "Internet hackers."
Someone with more experience please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this similar in some aspects to a Turing machine? And considering how flexible one of those is.. this could end up being some very useful technology. (Is technology the right word?)
Guess taking 4 years of Spanish in high school is going to pay off afterall, if a whole Spanish-speaking country ends up becoming Linux users.
Viva Linux!
Too bad I don't know enough Spanish IT vocab to translate the article fully though.
"..but the only required data point on the product activation screen is the country you're in."
I admittedly don't know if the activation process makes you dialup to your normal ISP or directly to Microsoft, but if you're dialing up to Microsft, they now have a phone number (and all the data that they can find with that) to enter into their customer database.
And even if you aren't dialing up directly to them, they'll still have your IP. Who knows who will get their hands on that information? Can you imagine if the people who got into the Microsoft computers had gotten their hands on a complete list of the IP addresses of the users of all Microsoft products (complete with their traditional gaping security defects..).
The information average users need to be worried about isn't the information you enter into your screen. It's the stuff that they don't even realize they're giving away. On the other hand.. if it means Microsoft has a complete profile of them when they call tech support, maybe they won't care?
Umm.. yeah they are. You know what they say about all code and no play.. or something like that, anyway.
I know a lot of people whose big reason for not at least giving some distro of Linux a try is that they can't play their games on it.
But it's not just actually finding a copy of the game under Linux and running it, I think it's also keeping the drivers updated and patches and the other assorted things that reduce the fun of PC gaming. Not that these things would necessarily be harder under Linux - but just that they're bad enough with windows, and people assume that they're going to have the same problems, except worse, under a non-Windows OS.
I loved Elite Force, which really made you feel as if you were part of a story. This is a good thing if you're in certain moods. If you find yourself skipping the cutscenes to get to the shooting, perhaps you ought to be playing.. Serious Sam - which comes out, I believe, early in March. Pure shoot-em-up; the story is completely irrelevant. I'm looking forward to that one too. It all boils down to your mood - do you want to think and feel? Or just get pumped full of adrenaline and twitch? Both are appropriate sometimes. I'd much rather play Elite Force when I'm in a good, active mood, and I'd much rather play Serious Sam when I'm pissed. Story in non-FPS games, I haven't quite considered yet. (Ok, fine. I haven't quite considered these types of games much at all, though RPGs and RTSs are both also fun at times. Usually when you want to think). Anyway, enough rambling. Diversity in games. Every game should have an intended mood that it causes, and a mood you need to play well; simply match the game to the mood and have a great time fragging.
Anticipating the consequences of your actions?? That's un-American!
Until someone gets sued, anyway.