Now, I dont think that you understand some
of the objections.
They are selling (making a profit)
information about someone. If someone
makes a profit off of information collected
for me, I want a cut. Example: if i volunteer
for a research study, I get cold hard cash.
And, actually, if they are paying for it with
government (which represents all of us, at least
in theory) money, then we have every right to
have a say in the use of information. And,
personally, I object to the rampant commercialism
in America. And I certainly object when data
concerning me is used by a corporation to
further their profile's.
The schools are not providing something free of
charge, they are charging the goverment who, last
time I checked, are takeing about a third of
my paycheck.
-CrackElf
that the whole point of capitalism was to allow
the ppl to buy the best product and thus
allow the 'natural' selection of...
oh wait, thats right, the actual reason is to
allow the rich and powerfull to get richer
and more powerfull by controlling the middle
and lower classs. right then.
the tighter that you squeeze your fist, the
more systems will slip through your fingers...
And I say 'mu'. The bible, for those who believe in it,
supercedes science. It is inherently illogical (or as
some uber religious types have informed me, it is 'above'
science).
I discovered, in arguing with a rather fundamentalist, that
we have separate underlying 'givens'. His first givens
(from which all of their other hypotheses are derived)
are God exists, the bible is literal, and jesus is a
manifestation of Gods presence on earth. Since I could
not get him to relinquish these givens, I could not get
him to concede a Godless universe.
(on a side note, he said that any proof of God would
invalidate Faith, which is a cornerstone (conveniently
IMO) of most creationist religions)
Re:Do you want to Open Source your girlfriend?
on
Portable Linux Box
·
· Score: 1
Well, actually, I believe that she owns all
original copyrights. So I really have very
little to do with it.
-CrackElf
I will not grant that this is a better system.
If you are any good at your field, you are
likely to have an opinion. When you have an
opinion, it is very hard to give a a truly
balanced critique / overview of a topic.
If you have just one person acting as an
interpreter, you have a significant chance of
getting a person who has one bias.
In the current system, you have one side bringing
up their 'experts' who will have a guaranteed bias,
however, you will have on the other side 'experts'
that will have a guaranteed bias to the other
extreme. It is better to have two known biases
offsetting each other, than one bias that has
no balance.
And besides, who will decide who is qualified to
have an expert 'unbiased' opinion. And who will
decide who will decide? etc.
I agree. Those who program w/out feeling
the elation of crafting and forming a
new thing of beauty are destine to create
a thing lacking beauty. Thus while not
all programmers are artists, most of
the good ones are.
-CrackElf
Perhaps, but an artist who does not
view Creation (designing a progie)
as Creative (and thus an Art) will,
more times than not, create crapware.
(and it begs the question: why are they
programming?)
-Crackelf
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I dont think that you understand some
of the objections.
They are selling (making a profit)
information about someone. If someone
makes a profit off of information collected
for me, I want a cut. Example: if i volunteer
for a research study, I get cold hard cash.
And, actually, if they are paying for it with
government (which represents all of us, at least
in theory) money, then we have every right to
have a say in the use of information. And,
personally, I object to the rampant commercialism
in America. And I certainly object when data
concerning me is used by a corporation to
further their profile's.
The schools are not providing something free of
charge, they are charging the goverment who, last
time I checked, are takeing about a third of
my paycheck.
-CrackElf
that the whole point of capitalism was to allow ...
...
the ppl to buy the best product and thus
allow the 'natural' selection of
oh wait, thats right, the actual reason is to
allow the rich and powerfull to get richer
and more powerfull by controlling the middle
and lower classs. right then.
the tighter that you squeeze your fist, the
more systems will slip through your fingers
And I say 'mu'. The bible, for those who believe in it,
supercedes science. It is inherently illogical (or as
some uber religious types have informed me, it is 'above'
science).
I discovered, in arguing with a rather fundamentalist, that
we have separate underlying 'givens'. His first givens
(from which all of their other hypotheses are derived)
are God exists, the bible is literal, and jesus is a
manifestation of Gods presence on earth. Since I could
not get him to relinquish these givens, I could not get
him to concede a Godless universe.
(on a side note, he said that any proof of God would
invalidate Faith, which is a cornerstone (conveniently
IMO) of most creationist religions)
Well, actually, I believe that she owns all
original copyrights. So I really have very
little to do with it.
-CrackElf
Perhaps it is cute enough to entice
my gf away from M$
-CrackElf
I will not grant that this is a better system.
If you are any good at your field, you are
likely to have an opinion. When you have an
opinion, it is very hard to give a a truly
balanced critique / overview of a topic.
If you have just one person acting as an
interpreter, you have a significant chance of
getting a person who has one bias.
In the current system, you have one side bringing
up their 'experts' who will have a guaranteed bias,
however, you will have on the other side 'experts'
that will have a guaranteed bias to the other
extreme. It is better to have two known biases
offsetting each other, than one bias that has
no balance.
And besides, who will decide who is qualified to
have an expert 'unbiased' opinion. And who will
decide who will decide? etc.
-CrackElf
I agree. Those who program w/out feeling
the elation of crafting and forming a
new thing of beauty are destine to create
a thing lacking beauty. Thus while not
all programmers are artists, most of
the good ones are.
-CrackElf
Perhaps, but an artist who does not
view Creation (designing a progie)
as Creative (and thus an Art) will,
more times than not, create crapware.
(and it begs the question: why are they
programming?)
-Crackelf
Wasn't there a book that started like that, except that the microbes were created to eat oil spills ... and they got out of hand.
-CrackElf