First off congratulations on pulling off both an ad hominem and straw man in the first sentence of your post - quite the accomplishment.
Where in my comment do I say the we are fighting a war in Iraq? I only refer to our presence in Iraq so as to be neutral in the "it's a war/it's an occupation" debate. The comparison to WW2 was to illustrate that the allies were able to out-smart and ultimately defeat three nations (few that would argue they were 'dumb') in less time than we have spent on the War on Terror(tm). So here we are five years after "mission accomplished" and we cannot outsmart these "stupid" insurgents/militias/terrorists. Seems to me they are smart enough to keep us mired in Iraq and spending $12-13 billion a month on shoe string budgets.
No winning a police action? No winning an occupation? Depends on how you define winning. I'd say the occupations of post-WW2 Germany and Japan were both wins by most measures as these countries have both rejoined the world stage as successful democracies. Before one can go on about winning/losing, you have to define the objectives. To use a bad (as if there was ever a good one) sports analogy, if you define winning as "whoever scores the most touchdowns" then it becomes hard to win when the game is hockey. You cannot "win" an occupation by using the same objectives as winning a war. One depends upon deescalation of violence while the other depends on escalating until your enemy submits.
The people we're fighting ARE pathetic - they are desperately poor, half-starving and scarcely even literate.
Uhm, you do know that Iraq was perhaps the most westernized and secular of all the Arab nations and as of the 2007 CIA Fact Book, still has Iraqis at a 74% literacy rate - despite two wars and over a decade of harsh sanctions. If they are poor and starving it is because the U.S. helped make them so. I'd say they were angry and desperate more so than pathetic.
The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are little different than Vietnam: it is impossible to fully secure any sufficiently rugged terrain from geurilla adversaries.
Uhm, ok - not sure where this is coming. If you would like to elaborate on your Vietnam argument I'd be happy to engage you. Now as for the "sufficiently rugged terrain" comment - you do know that the majority of trouble in Iraq is centered around the cities and villages right? U.S. forces are no stranger to urban combat - it typified a fair amount of the fighting in Europe in WW2. Now if you want to argue how no force (guerrilla or otherwise) can be sustained without the support of the local populace that's another question.
We killed three million Vietnamese - THREE MILLION - and still didn't manage to get anywhere fucking near 'Mission Accomplished' there
Now see, here it looks like you arguing that Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan are similar - or at least you are rhetorically connecting the two. Among the other problems in Vietnam (with echoes in the current conflict) is the lack of strategic direction. If you do not define what the objective is and establish goals working towards that objective it is impossible to succeed. While we won every tactical engagement, we lost in the strategic sense as we fought to be fighting and not towards some specific target which would allow for an end to the conflict.
You don't have to be smart to hide in the woods or the mountains of your own country and shoot a gun at any foreigner you see.
So any fool can assemble and deploy IED's threatening coalition supply lines? It takes no intelligence to be able to smuggle mortars past check points and patrols and strike targets deep within the green zone? Only a moron has the guile to infiltrate the Iraqi security forces the US is training and lead them into ambushes? If you are defining "smart" as being able to code or hack an iPod, then maybe these guys are not smart. But then again, maybe they just happen to be smart in the ways
Overwhelmingly ignorant and stupid? If that is so, what does that say about the fact that the Taliban has recovered in Afghanistan and now controls most everything outside the cities and has substantial influence in neighboring Pakistan?
Also, as we finish off year 5 of our presence in Iraq (longer, I might point out, than it took the Allies to defeat fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan combined) we are still fighting the same battles and no appreciable gains are being made by the Iraqi government. If these guys are so pathetic, what does that say about us where we're still fighting them and no closer to winning than 5 years ago?
The fact is that corporations are a product of the state and could not exist in a free market You do realize that even a free market could not exist without the government defining property (and by extension intellectual property) ownership? And how about contract law? Oh, I got it! You are talking about a barter system! I'm with you now!
Banking, insurance and language were not created or helped in any way by the state and intervention by the state invariably has negative consequence Yeah, I miss the good old days where banks were owned and operated independantly so if a bank over extended themselves via loans and went belly-up all their customers would be screwed due to their mismanagement. Curse the FDIC! We all know that CEO/CFO/etc are paragons of virtue if only they did not have pesky auditors checking their books and wasting their time. Why Worldcomm, ENRON and their compatriots might still be with us today if it were not for government meddling!
Though I have to admit I have no idea where you were going with that "language" bit.
the UK state intervention in the insurance and pension industries has done nothing but cause problems Yup - as soon as Prime Minister Thatcher moved to have their pension system privatized in 1984, it has been a new era of wealth and prosperity for the UK's retirees. Ignore those liars that say that the fees and charges have eaten an average of 30% of the savings accounts. Also ignore that the UK is now looking to the USA's social security program for their new model to get things back on track. More such lies can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/424r4/
It is totaly wrong to blame capitalism for major corporations. They are entities of the state. If by that you mean legal fictions that can own property, then yes. But then so are companies and most any other institution.
While it is impressive that your company can can match the 1% costs of the SSA, you do realize that they provide more than retirement benefits right? In addition to retirement, they also provide disability as well as survior benefits.
Now if your company can manage long-term disability as well as life-insurance benefits and still maintain a 1% overhead, then you may have a point.
If those are the towers I am thinking of, the contractors in question were Japanese and Korean. The idea being that the natural competitiveness/animosity between the two groups would push them to work harder as it would be a matter of cultural pride/shame to win/lose to the other team.
To restate what I said in the parent, the existing electric companies had already decided 1) It was too expensive to run wire out to the farms and 2) The farmers were too poor to pay for it anyways. 3) Farmers simply did not have the skills needed to manage local electric companies.
The utilities had already made the de facto decision that there was no profit to be made and therefore would not make the effort. Capitalism and the free market failed these rural people because of this. Therefore the government had to step in to remedy this situation.
As for "So, in effect, the electricity companies (by mandate of this law) either took a loss or the tax-payer subsidized it.", let me refer you again to the REA site: "By 1939 the REA had helped to establish 417 rural electric cooperatives, which served 288,000 households. The actions of the REA encouraged private utilities to electrify the countryside as well. By 1939 rural households with electricity had risen to 25 percent." So, only AFTER the government stepped in, helped farmers CREATE co-op electric companies to provide them with power and demonstrate it was economically viable did private industry step up to the plate. I will not even go into the secondary effects of appliance purchases driven by the fact that they now had electricity. Sounds more like private industry was suckling at the government teet than Big Bad Government(tm) stealing money from the citizenry and mismanaging it.
"Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation's consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity.
The Roosevelt Administration believed that if private enterprise could not supply electric power to the people, then it was the duty of the government to do so."
Granted it was the Federal Government that did this and not a local one, but last I checked, the Feds were still a public entity.
Pretty much every developed natiion has been experiencing exponential growth since the birth of modern medicine, ~250 years ago. It started out slow and has increased in speed, which is what exponential growth does.
I do not know about you, but according to the US Census Bureau, the rate of population growth has been slowing since 1960. From what I've been reading, this has proven true for all developed countries - in fact some are actually in decline and are dependant on immigration to slow/reverse this trend.
2) There's no shortage of food and fresh water, and there's no prospect of such any time soon.
Maybe where you live. Where I live we're already fighting for water with larger cities upstream. WE're not the only city in this situation, either.
As someone else pointed out, the problem is not so much that resources are running out, but rather they are not being distributed to where they are needed. Currently we have the capacity to produce enough food to feed the world's population, but because of human issues (wars/greed) the food cannot get to where the people are.
The Doctor is Out...(Enlisting in the racks of the Doomslayers!)
When is the last time you had to unplug your library because an electrical storm was headed you way? Do you check to make sure you are grounded before opening up your book and handling the pages therein? Last I checked, you didn't need to worry about being able to read the paper if you were in the middle of a black out (assuming a sunny day of course!).
+ It rarely loses data Except when it gets lost itself.
Not unlike misplacing your PDA or pitching that unlabeled CDR into that drawer full of other unlabel CDR's?
+ 100% availability with proper care Proper care?
You know, like not spilling liquids onto it or submerging it underwater (though the quality of the ink has more to do with that than anything). Fire is not good for paper, but I don't think pitching your PDA into the fireplace would do it much good either.
+ Annotations are simple But frequently illegible.
I'll grant you the legibility factor - but paper supports any known written language - no font packs necessary! Not to mention equation support which is not the default of most computer systems.
+ Easy to take with you But not in large quantities.
Like I want to haul a 1/2 lb. PDA just so I can have my grocery list?
+ Content doesn't change What about those annotations?
But unless you scribble out the original text you have both available to you. All you have to do is hit "save" instead of "save as" and bye-bye previous version! (Yes I am aware of Word's nefarious ability to save every little change - and how it got some companies into trouble).
+ Extremely quick access If you're in the same room with it.
Oh please, you keep your laptop on your person?
+and intuitive interface except in matters of layout and typography.
I person's ability for layout/typography on paper is limited by their artistic abilty. On the computer, it is not enough to be knowledgeable in layout/typography as you must understand how to use the application as well. In many cases, a person has to use 2-3+ programs just to get one page lain out correctly.
+ High resolution/easy on the eyes Unless you're looking at a 10th generation photocopy.
Now that is a stretch - how often do you sit in front of an AT with its vibrant EGA graphics to view your documents?
People are so used to putting up with the weaknesses of paper documents that they think they're strengths.
And people who discard something that has served the human race for a millenia just because it is "old" and "out moded" is being foolish. As someone pointed out earlier, computers have many strengths - particulary when it comes to aggregating, sorting and propigating information. But we must keep in mind the limitations of these systems as well lest we throw out the baby with the bath water.
The best hope we have of entering a paperless age has to be the eInk initiative which carries the strengths of both paper and computers. If/when electronic paper becomes a reality we will finally be able to realize the paperless office.
The Doctor is Out... (Golfing on this fine spring day)
The problem with your comparision is that energy consumption is an issue when dealing with the paper vs. computer discussion.
Once a page has been printed, the energy costs to access that information are zero. It can be read once, twice, a hundred times with no further energy required (and no, lights do not count because last I checked most people turn on lights when using their computer -it's a wash). A computer by nature of its design MUST consume energy every time you want to access a given bit of information.
While you point out that most people just leave their computers on all the time, most people do not have to worry about an electrical storm frying their post-its. Paper is a persistant medium that is fairly resilient to damage when compared to its electronic counter parts.
I must also dispute your notion that "PC's will consume less energy in the future" as that goes against historical trends. My 486 USED A 200W power supply. My 400MHz computer used a 250W power supply. I just built a XP1700 that with a 350W power supply (ok, only 300W was needed but I have several peripherals in there). The Pentium IV requires a direct power connection to the power supply. If anything, every generation of processor requires more power than the previous one. Not to mention 3D accelerators, CD/DVD burners, home RAIDs and who knows what else on the horizon will continue to increase power draw because performance, not power efficiency drives the market.
One last thought. You talk about the environmental impact of paper production. Have you ever read up on what it takes to build a computer? It requires a number of toxic processes that are extremely harmful to the environment - far more so than sustainable foresting/recycled paper production requires. But do not take my word for it, read about it here: http://www.svtc.org/hightech_prod/
Ah, the imaging to networked drives... I've never really tried that feature - I usually indulge in having a secondary drive in my systems that stores the cabs/drivers/images/etc. and so I've always had a local disk to dump things on.
As for the "Windows native" bit, that was a bit misleading - I blame the marketing guys as I would hope the engineers/programmers would know better. (As an ex-programmer, I've no lost love for sales/marketing folk)
As for the networking in a DOS environment, you're right - it ain't no picnic. I'm fortunate enough to come from a Novell 3.x environment and have mastered many tricks of networking from DOS - but it is still a gruelling task.
I hope for Power Quest's sake that they do not follow that same path as so many others where marketing/sales rule the company and half-truths and lies becomes their standard operating proceedure.
The Doctor is Out... (hunting the marketing menace!)
I too am disappointed that Power Quest has moved to a $50 upgrade path from their old $30 rate they used for so long.
However, if the upgrades truely offer nothing of value to you, then why do you get it? The only reason I upgraded lately is because I moved to Windows 2000 and the old version of Partition Magic I had did not work with NTFS.
You see, by choosing to go to W2K from '98, I also chose to upgrade Partition Magic as well. As for upgrading Drive Image - unless you chose to upgrade to XP, you could have stayed with Drive Image 4. In any case, is it Power Quest's fault that Microsoft releases new file systems with every OS release?
While I share your pain, I think you anger is misdirected...
The Doctor is Out... (Meditating on the Tau of WAN's)
You give very good examples of how sensory organs could develop in simpler organisms - there's no argument that evolution has a hand in shaping improvements in a particular species. However in the matter of macro-evolution (new species being created from progenitors) I have to debunk your example.
I hate to break this to you, but the Chinese are arguing that dinosaurs and birds are NOT related based on the scientific evidence - and have been since 1999.
To reiterate what others have said, there still is no real evidence of macro scale evolution and that is a hole that needs to be addressed.
The Doctor is Out... (Debunking the misconceptions of the masses)
P.S. - I'd be careful about throwing around phrases like abscence of evidence is not considered conclusive proof because that would mean that lack of proof of a higher being (a.k.a. God) does not preclude its existence. Don't want to feed the religious trolls do we?;)
Uhm, speaking as a Midwesterner, why do you assume that we treat women, blacks, non-Christians, gays, (fill in the blank) as 2nd class citizens?
Last time I checked, I have several gay/black/non-Christian friends and happen to work for a woman and work with many female coworkers and have not seen any form of discrimination in the 6-7 years I've worked here. If I didn't know better I'd say you're just using the Midwest "or anyplace other than the 'liberal east'" as a scapegoat for the ills of our society.
Last I heard from your 'liberal east', Vermont is repealing it's same-sex marriage laws at the same time we in the Midwest are ensuring that they receive equal treatment under the law.
Sure you may point out that we're just now getting to this, but on the otherhand we don't do something unless we mean it - don't expect us to backpedal like Vermont.
And while Virginia is embracing UTICA (thankfully they put in the one year evaluation clause), Iowa passed 'Bomb-shelter' legislation that makes Iowan residents immune to (UTICA)prosecution even though the company they may have purchased from is in an UTICA-enabled state.
From where I'm standing, it's not the Midwest you need to be worrying about - it's the folks in your own backyard dismantling your freedom - not us.
The Doctor is Out...([sarcasm]Trying hard not to beat a gay/minority/woman/non-Christian on the way to work today[/sarcasm])
Turning your argument on its ear
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
To continue this excercise now let's rearrange the scenario:
I am a Joe Windows user, I can install programs, surf the 'net (AOL) and made a web page with last years vacation pictures.
FreeUser is a Linux advocate who knows C, Java, etc and is developing a web-based application (not in any way related to what I am doing).
I think I know alot about the web, after all, I have a web page I built myself! I go over to your cubical and say "Hey FreeUser, you're doing that all wrong! You should make it work like this..." and proceed to tell you how your project should go even though I know know nothing about web developement.
So, do you:
a) believe that you, a knowledgeable web developer, should bow to my wishes even though I am not involved with the project and don't know what I'm talking about
b) say "That's nice" and proceed to do what you know is best?
I'd have to say that 'b' would be your (and most people's) choice. Since I was not involved with the project, and did not have any knowledge that was useful to the project, how can I judge what you are doing is wrong?
Answer: I can't. I do not have the authority (technical knowledge/project involvement) to say what you are doing is right or wrong.
On the other hand, if I were trying to do some java script on my web page and you came by my house and saw I had written the code incorrectly, you WOULD have the authority to say I was wrong because you have the technical knowledge to fix the problem. You would also have the power to a) fix what was wrong, b) show me how to fix the problem or c) point me in the direction of some good java resources to learn for myself what was wrong and how to fix it. (Assuming you are a friend and wished to help me)
Now, do I have the right to judge you on your java skills? Heck no! I don't bring enough knowledge to the table to put my two cents in. I could criticize your handling of the situation "Why'd ya have to push me out of the way?" but not the java coding itself.
There are theologians and philosophers far more learned than I that can discuss the concept of authority in the deitific/metaphysical sense better than I but these examples show that "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."
I won't even go into the judging thing. I believe it is not right to judge other people. I do believe in leading by example and lending help where it is asked for (or offering help where I think it is needed). If they don't like the solutions I offer, I help them find the solution that does help them.
Too often we forget that there are common truths (water is wet, Brittney Spears bites;) and personal truths (UNIX/Linux/MacOS/WinXX is the one true OS, there is(no)God, blue is pretty). Some things can be scientifically demonstrated (Ex:the sun/earth relationship) while personal truths for the most part are taken on faith alone.
To correct someone on a common truth (the Earth is not flat) is doing them a favor, to attack them for a personal truth is foolishness. Even more so is to berate someone for what they believe is right, by beating them over the head with what you believe is right.
One last thought: What was that rule about arguments and Nazis? Oh yeah, first one to mention them loses.:)
The Doctor is Out...
Re:The human conception of morality does not matte
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
In challenge to the reasoning used in some of your arguments:
"IMHO, this is really where the alleged morality in religeon breaks down. When the God character rhetorically asked the Job character, "Where were you when I made the world?" the authors were copping out, because the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the story was that the God character was evil by man's standards. They couldn't figure out any other way to end the story, so they tried the "You just don't get it" angle."
Tell me, can you percieve the 4th dimension? 5th? 6th? Our best mathematicians say the evidence points to a 10 dimension universe - but I cannot perceive, much less conceive the idea of 7 more dimensions. Or how about infinity? Being a finite being makes it impossible to truely understand such things. Sure you can say you 'get it' but you can never truely understand it.
"Ethical and rational humans simply must have concepts of good an evil. If a man's (even if that man is a believer in God) concept of good and evil is flawed, then that man must be wrong about some things. His senses are wrong, his logic is wrong, and his faith is wrong too. How can you, apparently a believer, say that anything is right or wrong (including cloning Tasmanian Tigers) when you yourself admit that you don't know what is right or wrong?"
Now I'm sure you've seen a magician before. While your senses may tell you "hey, he pulled a coin out of that guy's ear!", does that mean your reasoning capabilities suddenly surrender to what you see? (I should hope no one in this forum is so inclined!) For most people, of course not - they're trying to logically deduce what happened to explain what they sensed. Faith would only come in where you truely believed (or didn't believe) he used magic. If you believed he used magic, then your logic would reflect that faith. On the other hand, if your faith tells you he is no magician (or that there is no such thing as magic) but your logic fails to explain how he did it, is your faith flawed or your logic?
"If you can judge Man, you can judge God by those same standards. If you can't judge God, you can't judge Man. So what's it going to be: when you want to know if something is right or not, are you going to think for yourself, or are you going to quote what philosophers wrote thousands of years ago before even the most basic principles of the universe were understood?"
That is like saying that because you are a Linux guru, you are fit to give medical advice. God(s) are usually considered to be beings of infinite capcity: power, knowledge, presence. Mankind has been, and will likely always be finite (aka mortal) beings and as such cannot grasp concepts that exist beyond what our minds and senses tell us. Or to use a parable of sorts: Say I'm a windows user. I know how to install programs and even setup and installed my own printer. Now I come over to you, a Linux hacker, and start telling you how you should be working on your project. I may think I know alot about computers, but by comparison, I know nothing. I think it's wrong to judge people regardless of circumstances. I prefer to inform "I think this is how it should work", be informed "No, it has to work this way because..." and collaborate/compromise.
Just because somthing CAN be done, does not neccesitate that it MUST be done. Reasoning should entail the premise, the solution and the conclusion. In other words, if a there is a problem: extinct animal, and we have a solution: cloning, what is the conclusion from implementing the solution? An animal that is no longer viable in it's former habitat? Unlimited zoo exhibits? Pets for the rich and powerful? Exotic dishes at 5 star restaurants? Or we could try this: We have a problem: people using email to facilitate crime, a solution: carnivore, should we just roll out the barrel and hope for the best? Or should we take a serious look at this and say "should we even consider doing this?"
Don't allow your faith (that organized religion is evil) blind you to reason. Faith and reason both have their places.
The Doctor is Out...
Re:I am God. Bow down before me, bitch.
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I think this is should be mod'd (-1) off topic and (-1) flame bait.
And here I thought that geeks, being the subject of persecution by the "norms" were supposed to be a better, more understanding lot....
While I found your post to be well written and outlined the Kennedy theories nicely, I do have a small correction regarding the U2 incident.
The U2 flights were authorized during the Eisenhower administration and it was during his watch that the infamous Garry Powers incident occurred.
While Kennedy may not have been directly involved with that incident, it caused a great loss of face for the office of the President for years to come...
The Doctor is In...(his room watching the History channel)
Actually, there are a lot MORE costs associated with producing a book than with creating music.
Of course both the artist and writer get paid for their work - let move on to the ancillary costs:
- While the artist has to pay for recording time the writer has to pay for a editor/proofer to make sure the work is coherent and has no spelling and gramatical errors.
- While the artist is paying someone to develope some nice CD insert artwork etc, the writer is paying to have someone design the cover for their book - usually 2 designs because the hardcover version is different than the softcover print run.
- While the artist pays for post-production work, the writer/publisher has to pay for prepress work - that means getting color proofs done and creating plates to put on the presses. I'm not sure about the major publishing house presses, but your typical metal plate can only have 8 pages and needs to be replaced every 100-200K impressions - all at the low, low price of $40 per plate. Multiply by 4 if in full color. BTW, anyone know how much a gold master costs to produce and how many CD's can be stamped out by it?
- Materials cost for a CD are easily under $.25 in those volumes. Paper cost for volume printing runs around $.005 per sheet for plain Jane white paper. For a 200 page book, you're talking $.50 in material cost alone - and you haven't even run it through the press yet.
I won't even touch the finishing aspects of production but book binding is considerably more difficult and expensive than assembling a jewel case and sticking the CD and insert inside.
I can only imagine that distribution costs for books are considerably higher than CDs factoring the weight and volume disparity.
But yet I can get a paperback book from the local store for $5 vs. $12 for a CD.
I hate to burst your bubble about the technical superiority being the cause of MicroSoft's huge share of the browser market. Is it a good product? Sure, it's not bad. But, the fact that every PC (ok 99.9999%)ships with IE installed has nothing to do with it? The fact that every AOL user has to use IE to use their service has nothing to do with it? If technical superiority is truely the measure of whether or not something was adopted, we'd all have BetaMax's instead of VCR's.
As for your "they can just get another browser...", broadband is still not ubiquitous and most people I know still use dial-up modem connections. Are you going to sit and download a browser for 1-2 days or just take what you've been given. Even still, can you show me where I can uninstall IE5 and free up those resources for my new browser? Or do I have to put up with effectively running both so long as I'm on a Windows box? (Remember, the reason IE is so fast is because it preloads everything on boot-up and those memory resources cannot be freed up for other applications!)
Your anaology is not bad but you down't take it far enough.
The car is mearely the means of transport (aka the browser), but MicroSoft controls much more than just that.
They control the filling stations (FrontPage) "Sorry buddy, you can't fill up your tank here - you're not MS compliant", the roads (not yet, but they hope to with IIS) "You can't drive that here - those aren't MS approved tires!" and of course infrastructure that maintains it all (Windows in its various incarnations).
Finally, as to your argument that the other companies should simply start "developing faster". Do you really believe that MicroSoft would look at a new feature in Mozilla and say "Hey, that's neat, let's do that too!", rather than "Hey, they got a new feature we don't have! Release the PR hounds and flood the media touting how non-(MS)standards compliant they are!"
If MS was truely concerned with standards a the betterment of the Internet as a whole, they would propose their changes to the W3C (yes, they are members after all) and be first to market these innovations.
Was Netscape any better? No. Would I bash them as readily as MS? Yes. But look at this picture: one company is sponsoring a project to make a truely standards compliant browser and the other just released a new browser without added compliance but plenty of new proprietary features. One of these is Netscape, the other is MicroSoft - I'll let you figure which is which.
I think you might have that timeline a little skewed.
Back in '95, Windows 3.xx was the MS operating system of choice for the venerable 386 computers and the 486 was the defacto standard system being sold off the shelves - also with 3.xx.
Windows '95 came and claimed it would run on a 486 with 8 megs of memory. I managed to get it up and running on a 486DX2-66 with 12 megs of RAM and it was a sorry sight indeed. To get proper performance out of Win'95 you needed at least a Pentium 50 with 16 megs of RAM.
I don't recall MicroSoft being so ostentatious as to make the claim it would even load on a 386.
But the real argument is not whether the hardware needs to catch-up (if the OS ran yesterday on box X, it will still run tomorrow on same), but if website Y is viewable on your browser today does not mean your browser will be able to render it tomorrow if they decide to take advantage of MS's "new features".
The nice thing is they may not even know they're doing it. The mere act of upgrading to the latest FrontPage will ensure that these new tags are automagically inserted were appropriate to break browser compatability.
It not that MicroSoft is evil, it's that they truely beileve they're doing what's best for the industry that has me worried....
The Doctor is Out...(pining for the simple days where "browser" meant "mosaic")
Whoops - guess that teaches me to stay up til 2am watching "The Green Mile" (Excellent movie even at 3hrs 20min) and trying to post the morning after...
Thanks for the correction and the recommended reading - I'm finishing up Cryptonomicon and was looking for something new to tackle...
The Doctor is Out... (Like a light...too many hours... too little sleep...)
Flaws of logic and irony...
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
"In your why ask why?" - you make the misconception that why and how are different questions. From a scientific stand point, the two are synonymous. Why does a plane fly and how does a plane fly both address aerodynamics. Now I agree in some contexts they differ (why does the pilot fly the plane vs. how does the pilot fly the plane) but scientists are as obsessed with the "why's" of the universe as people of a more religious bent.
The crux of the argument is that scientists aren't tackling the biggest how - HOW will this knowledge be used? In the seemingly blind pursuit of knowledge, they seem to ignore the implications of what they are doing.
As for religions being based on fear - uhm, I'm not sure which religions you've been exposed to, but it has been my experience that most religions are based on hope and an attempt to find inner peace...but then I've only been exposed to a few religions Shinto, Hindu, Buddism, Islam and 6 flavors of Christianity that I can recall off the top of my head. Sucks being the product of a "fearful, hateful" Catholic education.:)
As for your list of the "Christianity's Most Wanted...", I think you've been hanging around with the wrong croud. I'm not positive, but that sounded like the manifesto for the KKK, not any of the Christian groups I'm aware of (other than the KKK itself - but I don't consider them to be a true Christian religion).
I find it sad for someone that otherwise seems to be a rational, thinking being uses such stereotyped, biased and otherwise skewed facts to base their logic upon. In the words of Sun Tsu (actually a paraphrase): Know the terrain, know the enemy, know yourself. To know all of these is to ensure victory, to know two of these - victory is uncertain, to know one of these is doubtful, and to know none of these is failure. I think you know yourself, and the terrain (argument) but fail to know your enemy (organized religion - fill in the blank here).
As I close, I leave you with the irony part of my retort. Do you realize where your sig came from? As I seem to recall, that quote would have to be attributed to one St. Thomas Aquinas - a Catholic theologian.
The Doctor is Out...(Fighting his way to the 19th hole...)
After reading your (and other's posts) I can see there are some basic misconceptions at work here....
"Look if Nike opens up a plant in country X they certainly don't get out guns and force people to work there. People work there because they think it is better than doing whatever it was they were doing before (subsistance farming or being unemployed)."
Listen to yourself - these people are faced with the decision of working for X Corp. or starving/living in abject poverty. In poker, they'd call that "holding all the cards". X Corp. can dictate outrageously low wages, unsafe working conditions and/or rape the land and what choice to the locals have? A drowning man will gladly grab the business end of a sword if it means averting death for a little while longer.
"By droping trade barriers we merely give them more options...they could still choose to trade only amoungst themselves with no harm (in principle). All this going on about decent wages for third world countries is just a clever way to say "we don't want to lost american jobs." If this actually hurt third world countries they wouldn't sign the treaty would they?"
The only people given more options are the multi-corps. While I grant you that protectionist trade barriers hinder economic growth, some of those barriers are in place to force countries to improve human rights and environmental laws. The WTO would have us lose the ability to say "Hey, if you want to trade with us, you'd better start educating those kids instead of working them 16 hours a day". You see, if anything, 3rd world countries (governments) would be lining up to sign the treaty because now western-based corps can pick up and move and still do business as usual back home, at a fraction of the labor expense, with none of those pesky trade barriers to eat into the profit margins.
"Secondly, and this is the biggest misconception of them all, is that it doesn't screw america. Suppose some american jobs get exported oversees... this means that the people overseas can produce this product cheaper then we can. Hence we can buy more of the product. Some american workers might lost their jobs but someone else will hire them (the number of people with good job records who are actively looking but cannot find jobs is almost minimal). Thus america produces just as much as we did before AND we get more products shipped in from overseas. We are a richer country and workers can buy things cheaper. "
I don't know if it was you or another poster (my apologies for not properly giving credit where credit is due), but the U.S. is in a period of remarkably low unemployment (partly thanks to the redefinition of $6.50/hr jobs at McDonald's et al. as "gainful employment" - nevermind you'd have to work two full-time jobs like that to just get by - and forget insurance... but that's another subject) and you're seeking to eliminate jobs? And where is Joe Steelworker supposed to find a job? Here's the scenario - we've got two steel mills, X Corp. and Y Corp. X Corp. moves its operations to a foreign country that they can get resources and labor for pennies on the dollar (no nastly health, safety, or environmental regulations to abide by!) Thanks to the WTO, they can bring their goods bad into the U.S. (can't erect any trade barriers forbading exploitive products!) and sell them cheaper under cutting Y Corp. because it still plays by all the health, safety, and environmental rules. Y Corp., in order to stay competitive, likewise moves its operations out of the country. Who then is left to employ the workers of both corps?
There are some of those that would argue "why don't they just go out and get trained as IT people?" Two reasons: 1) People have aptitudes, areas that they are good at. I no more claim that I could retrain as a mechanic [or fill in trade here] than I would expect them to grasp the nuances of assembly programming. Just as I have some difficulty grasping mechanical processes (as my ACT's will attest) I don't expect a person who's worked with their hands all their life to formulate algorithms , code [insert language here] and be any good at it (i.e. marketable).
2) Even if they all had the aptitude, there is still a question of simple ecomonics - education doesn't come for free. I don't know what most people's backgrounds are here on Slashdot, but I come from a blue collar family. My dad worked hard as a tradesman to support our family and lots of times we lived check to check. Now, when you've been laid off, and you've had to live like that - how in the heck are you going to pay for training/education that starts at $5000? Your first concern is to keep that roof over your family's head, food on that table and clothes on their backs. After survival needs are met do you have the luxury of affording eduction and that usually goes to the kids so they and their families don't have to go through that.
It has been my experience that most "laborers" are good, honest folks just trying to make a better life for their family(at least in the Midwest). On the other hand, many white collar people I run into are more concerned with their portfolio than their coworkers. Sadly, it seems it's exactly these kinds of "go getters" that become the phb's of tomorrow... (Sorry to generalize, I know there's a bad apple in any given group - just trying to convey my experiences...)
I understand what it's like to grow up in a blue-collar family. I also enjoy the benefits of a good education and everything an IT career has to offer. Sure we have our share of corupt union leaders, but don't try and tell me all publicly traded companies have human rights and the environment at heart. Take a step back, look at the big picture. Open your eyes, open your mind - there's alot more to this than what the media tells you...
Slashdot Mirror
Where in my comment do I say the we are fighting a war in Iraq? I only refer to our presence in Iraq so as to be neutral in the "it's a war/it's an occupation" debate. The comparison to WW2 was to illustrate that the allies were able to out-smart and ultimately defeat three nations (few that would argue they were 'dumb') in less time than we have spent on the War on Terror(tm). So here we are five years after "mission accomplished" and we cannot outsmart these "stupid" insurgents/militias/terrorists. Seems to me they are smart enough to keep us mired in Iraq and spending $12-13 billion a month on shoe string budgets.
No winning a police action? No winning an occupation? Depends on how you define winning. I'd say the occupations of post-WW2 Germany and Japan were both wins by most measures as these countries have both rejoined the world stage as successful democracies. Before one can go on about winning/losing, you have to define the objectives. To use a bad (as if there was ever a good one) sports analogy, if you define winning as "whoever scores the most touchdowns" then it becomes hard to win when the game is hockey. You cannot "win" an occupation by using the same objectives as winning a war. One depends upon deescalation of violence while the other depends on escalating until your enemy submits.
The people we're fighting ARE pathetic - they are desperately poor, half-starving and scarcely even literate.
Uhm, you do know that Iraq was perhaps the most westernized and secular of all the Arab nations and as of the 2007 CIA Fact Book, still has Iraqis at a 74% literacy rate - despite two wars and over a decade of harsh sanctions. If they are poor and starving it is because the U.S. helped make them so. I'd say they were angry and desperate more so than pathetic.
The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are little different than Vietnam: it is impossible to fully secure any sufficiently rugged terrain from geurilla adversaries.
Uhm, ok - not sure where this is coming. If you would like to elaborate on your Vietnam argument I'd be happy to engage you. Now as for the "sufficiently rugged terrain" comment - you do know that the majority of trouble in Iraq is centered around the cities and villages right? U.S. forces are no stranger to urban combat - it typified a fair amount of the fighting in Europe in WW2. Now if you want to argue how no force (guerrilla or otherwise) can be sustained without the support of the local populace that's another question.
We killed three million Vietnamese - THREE MILLION - and still didn't manage to get anywhere fucking near 'Mission Accomplished' there
Now see, here it looks like you arguing that Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan are similar - or at least you are rhetorically connecting the two. Among the other problems in Vietnam (with echoes in the current conflict) is the lack of strategic direction. If you do not define what the objective is and establish goals working towards that objective it is impossible to succeed. While we won every tactical engagement, we lost in the strategic sense as we fought to be fighting and not towards some specific target which would allow for an end to the conflict.
You don't have to be smart to hide in the woods or the mountains of your own country and shoot a gun at any foreigner you see.
So any fool can assemble and deploy IED's threatening coalition supply lines? It takes no intelligence to be able to smuggle mortars past check points and patrols and strike targets deep within the green zone? Only a moron has the guile to infiltrate the Iraqi security forces the US is training and lead them into ambushes? If you are defining "smart" as being able to code or hack an iPod, then maybe these guys are not smart. But then again, maybe they just happen to be smart in the ways
Overwhelmingly ignorant and stupid? If that is so, what does that say about the fact that the Taliban has recovered in Afghanistan and now controls most everything outside the cities and has substantial influence in neighboring Pakistan?
Also, as we finish off year 5 of our presence in Iraq (longer, I might point out, than it took the Allies to defeat fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan combined) we are still fighting the same battles and no appreciable gains are being made by the Iraqi government. If these guys are so pathetic, what does that say about us where we're still fighting them and no closer to winning than 5 years ago?
The fact is that corporations are a product of the state and could not exist in a free market
You do realize that even a free market could not exist without the government defining property (and by extension intellectual property) ownership? And how about contract law? Oh, I got it! You are talking about a barter system! I'm with you now!
Banking, insurance and language were not created or helped in any way by the state and intervention by the state invariably has negative consequence
Yeah, I miss the good old days where banks were owned and operated independantly so if a bank over extended themselves via loans and went belly-up all their customers would be screwed due to their mismanagement. Curse the FDIC! We all know that CEO/CFO/etc are paragons of virtue if only they did not have pesky auditors checking their books and wasting their time. Why Worldcomm, ENRON and their compatriots might still be with us today if it were not for government meddling!
Though I have to admit I have no idea where you were going with that "language" bit.
the UK state intervention in the insurance and pension industries has done nothing but cause problems
Yup - as soon as Prime Minister Thatcher moved to have their pension system privatized in 1984, it has been a new era of wealth and prosperity for the UK's retirees. Ignore those liars that say that the fees and charges have eaten an average of 30% of the savings accounts. Also ignore that the UK is now looking to the USA's social security program for their new model to get things back on track. More such lies can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/424r4/
It is totaly wrong to blame capitalism for major corporations. They are entities of the state.
If by that you mean legal fictions that can own property, then yes. But then so are companies and most any other institution.
While it is impressive that your company can can match the 1% costs of the SSA, you do realize that they provide more than retirement benefits right? In addition to retirement, they also provide disability as well as survior benefits.
Now if your company can manage long-term disability as well as life-insurance benefits and still maintain a 1% overhead, then you may have a point.
If those are the towers I am thinking of, the contractors in question were Japanese and Korean. The idea being that the natural competitiveness/animosity between the two groups would push them to work harder as it would be a matter of cultural pride/shame to win/lose to the other team.
To restate what I said in the parent, the existing electric companies had already decided
1) It was too expensive to run wire out to the farms and
2) The farmers were too poor to pay for it anyways.
3) Farmers simply did not have the skills needed to manage local electric companies.
The utilities had already made the de facto decision that there was no profit to be made and therefore would not make the effort. Capitalism and the free market failed these rural people because of this. Therefore the government had to step in to remedy this situation.
As for "So, in effect, the electricity companies (by mandate of this law) either took a loss or the tax-payer subsidized it.", let me refer you again to the REA site:
"By 1939 the REA had helped to establish 417 rural electric cooperatives, which served 288,000 households. The actions of the REA encouraged private utilities to electrify the countryside as well. By 1939 rural households with electricity had risen to 25 percent."
So, only AFTER the government stepped in, helped farmers CREATE co-op electric companies to provide them with power and demonstrate it was economically viable did private industry step up to the plate. I will not even go into the secondary effects of appliance purchases driven by the fact that they now had electricity. Sounds more like private industry was suckling at the government teet than Big Bad Government(tm) stealing money from the citizenry and mismanaging it.
Uhm, you do realize that if left for the private sector, much of rural America would STILL be without power?
Here's an excerpt about the Rural Electric Administration: http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/tva10.htm
"Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation's consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity.
The Roosevelt Administration believed that if private enterprise could not supply electric power to the people, then it was the duty of the government to do so."
Granted it was the Federal Government that did this and not a local one, but last I checked, the Feds were still a public entity.
The Doctor is Out...(Enlisting in the racks of the Doomslayers!)
Not unlike misplacing your PDA or pitching that unlabeled CDR into that drawer full of other unlabel CDR's?
You know, like not spilling liquids onto it or submerging it underwater (though the quality of the ink has more to do with that than anything). Fire is not good for paper, but I don't think pitching your PDA into the fireplace would do it much good either.
I'll grant you the legibility factor - but paper supports any known written language - no font packs necessary! Not to mention equation support which is not the default of most computer systems.
Like I want to haul a 1/2 lb. PDA just so I can have my grocery list?
But unless you scribble out the original text you have both available to you. All you have to do is hit "save" instead of "save as" and bye-bye previous version! (Yes I am aware of Word's nefarious ability to save every little change - and how it got some companies into trouble).
Oh please, you keep your laptop on your person?
I person's ability for layout/typography on paper is limited by their artistic abilty. On the computer, it is not enough to be knowledgeable in layout/typography as you must understand how to use the application as well. In many cases, a person has to use 2-3+ programs just to get one page lain out correctly.
Now that is a stretch - how often do you sit in front of an AT with its vibrant EGA graphics to view your documents?
And people who discard something that has served the human race for a millenia just because it is "old" and "out moded" is being foolish. As someone pointed out earlier, computers have many strengths - particulary when it comes to aggregating, sorting and propigating information. But we must keep in mind the limitations of these systems as well lest we throw out the baby with the bath water.
The best hope we have of entering a paperless age has to be the eInk initiative which carries the strengths of both paper and computers. If/when electronic paper becomes a reality we will finally be able to realize the paperless office.
The Doctor is Out... (Golfing on this fine spring day)
The problem with your comparision is that energy consumption is an issue when dealing with the paper vs. computer discussion.
Once a page has been printed, the energy costs to access that information are zero. It can be read once, twice, a hundred times with no further energy required (and no, lights do not count because last I checked most people turn on lights when using their computer -it's a wash). A computer by nature of its design MUST consume energy every time you want to access a given bit of information.
While you point out that most people just leave their computers on all the time, most people do not have to worry about an electrical storm frying their post-its. Paper is a persistant medium that is fairly resilient to damage when compared to its electronic counter parts.
I must also dispute your notion that "PC's will consume less energy in the future" as that goes against historical trends. My 486 USED A 200W power supply. My 400MHz computer used a 250W power supply. I just built a XP1700 that with a 350W power supply (ok, only 300W was needed but I have several peripherals in there). The Pentium IV requires a direct power connection to the power supply. If anything, every generation of processor requires more power than the previous one. Not to mention 3D accelerators, CD/DVD burners, home RAIDs and who knows what else on the horizon will continue to increase power draw because performance, not power efficiency drives the market.
One last thought. You talk about the environmental impact of paper production. Have you ever read up on what it takes to build a computer? It requires a number of toxic processes that are extremely harmful to the environment - far more so than sustainable foresting/recycled paper production requires. But do not take my word for it, read about it here: http://www.svtc.org/hightech_prod/
The Doctor is Out... (Enjoying the warm weather)
Ah, the imaging to networked drives... I've never really tried that feature - I usually indulge in having a secondary drive in my systems that stores the cabs/drivers/images/etc. and so I've always had a local disk to dump things on.
As for the "Windows native" bit, that was a bit misleading - I blame the marketing guys as I would hope the engineers/programmers would know better. (As an ex-programmer, I've no lost love for sales/marketing folk)
As for the networking in a DOS environment, you're right - it ain't no picnic. I'm fortunate enough to come from a Novell 3.x environment and have mastered many tricks of networking from DOS - but it is still a gruelling task.
I hope for Power Quest's sake that they do not follow that same path as so many others where marketing/sales rule the company and half-truths and lies becomes their standard operating proceedure.
The Doctor is Out... (hunting the marketing menace!)
I too am disappointed that Power Quest has moved to a $50 upgrade path from their old $30 rate they used for so long.
However, if the upgrades truely offer nothing of value to you, then why do you get it? The only reason I upgraded lately is because I moved to Windows 2000 and the old version of Partition Magic I had did not work with NTFS.
You see, by choosing to go to W2K from '98, I also chose to upgrade Partition Magic as well. As for upgrading Drive Image - unless you chose to upgrade to XP, you could have stayed with Drive Image 4. In any case, is it Power Quest's fault that Microsoft releases new file systems with every OS release?
While I share your pain, I think you anger is misdirected...
The Doctor is Out... (Meditating on the Tau of WAN's)
You give very good examples of how sensory organs could develop in simpler organisms - there's no argument that evolution has a hand in shaping improvements in a particular species. However in the matter of macro-evolution (new species being created from progenitors) I have to debunk your example.
;)
I hate to break this to you, but the Chinese are arguing that dinosaurs and birds are NOT related based on the scientific evidence - and have been since 1999.
But don't take my word for it, take theirs.
To reiterate what others have said, there still is no real evidence of macro scale evolution and that is a hole that needs to be addressed.
The Doctor is Out... (Debunking the misconceptions of the masses)
P.S. - I'd be careful about throwing around phrases like abscence of evidence is not considered conclusive proof because that would mean that lack of proof of a higher being (a.k.a. God) does not preclude its existence. Don't want to feed the religious trolls do we?
Uhm, speaking as a Midwesterner, why do you assume that we treat women, blacks, non-Christians, gays, (fill in the blank) as 2nd class citizens?
Last time I checked, I have several gay/black/non-Christian friends and happen to work for a woman and work with many female coworkers and have not seen any form of discrimination in the 6-7 years I've worked here. If I didn't know better I'd say you're just using the Midwest "or anyplace other than the 'liberal east'" as a scapegoat for the ills of our society.
Last I heard from your 'liberal east', Vermont is repealing it's same-sex marriage laws at the same time we in the Midwest are ensuring that they receive equal treatment under the law.
Sure you may point out that we're just now getting to this, but on the otherhand we don't do something unless we mean it - don't expect us to backpedal like Vermont.
And while Virginia is embracing UTICA (thankfully they put in the one year evaluation clause), Iowa passed 'Bomb-shelter' legislation that makes Iowan residents immune to (UTICA)prosecution even though the company they may have purchased from is in an UTICA-enabled state.
From where I'm standing, it's not the Midwest you need to be worrying about - it's the folks in your own backyard dismantling your freedom - not us.
The Doctor is Out...([sarcasm]Trying hard not to beat a gay/minority/woman/non-Christian on the way to work today[/sarcasm])
To continue this excercise now let's rearrange the scenario:
;) and personal truths (UNIX/Linux/MacOS/WinXX is the one true OS, there is(no)God, blue is pretty). Some things can be scientifically demonstrated (Ex:the sun/earth relationship) while personal truths for the most part are taken on faith alone.
:)
I am a Joe Windows user, I can install programs, surf the 'net (AOL) and made a web page with last years vacation pictures.
FreeUser is a Linux advocate who knows C, Java, etc and is developing a web-based application (not in any way related to what I am doing).
I think I know alot about the web, after all, I have a web page I built myself! I go over to your cubical and say "Hey FreeUser, you're doing that all wrong! You should make it work like this..." and proceed to tell you how your project should go even though I know know nothing about web developement.
So, do you:
a) believe that you, a knowledgeable web developer, should bow to my wishes even though I am not involved with the project and don't know what I'm talking about
b) say "That's nice" and proceed to do what you know is best?
I'd have to say that 'b' would be your (and most people's) choice. Since I was not involved with the project, and did not have any knowledge that was useful to the project, how can I judge what you are doing is wrong?
Answer: I can't. I do not have the authority (technical knowledge/project involvement) to say what you are doing is right or wrong.
On the other hand, if I were trying to do some java script on my web page and you came by my house and saw I had written the code incorrectly, you WOULD have the authority to say I was wrong because you have the technical knowledge to fix the problem. You would also have the power to a) fix what was wrong, b) show me how to fix the problem or c) point me in the direction of some good java resources to learn for myself what was wrong and how to fix it. (Assuming you are a friend and wished to help me)
Now, do I have the right to judge you on your java skills? Heck no! I don't bring enough knowledge to the table to put my two cents in. I could criticize your handling of the situation "Why'd ya have to push me out of the way?" but not the java coding itself.
There are theologians and philosophers far more learned than I that can discuss the concept of authority in the deitific/metaphysical sense better than I but these examples show that "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."
I won't even go into the judging thing. I believe it is not right to judge other people. I do believe in leading by example and lending help where it is asked for (or offering help where I think it is needed). If they don't like the solutions I offer, I help them find the solution that does help them.
Too often we forget that there are common truths (water is wet, Brittney Spears bites
To correct someone on a common truth (the Earth is not flat) is doing them a favor, to attack them for a personal truth is foolishness. Even more so is to berate someone for what they believe is right, by beating them over the head with what you believe is right.
One last thought: What was that rule about arguments and Nazis? Oh yeah, first one to mention them loses.
The Doctor is Out...
In challenge to the reasoning used in some of your arguments:
"IMHO, this is really where the alleged morality in religeon breaks down. When the God character rhetorically asked the Job character, "Where were you when I made the world?" the authors were copping out, because the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the story was that the God character was evil by man's standards. They couldn't figure out any other way to end the story, so they tried the "You just don't get it" angle."
Tell me, can you percieve the 4th dimension? 5th? 6th? Our best mathematicians say the evidence points to a 10 dimension universe - but I cannot perceive, much less conceive the idea of 7 more dimensions. Or how about infinity? Being a finite being makes it impossible to truely understand such things. Sure you can say you 'get it' but you can never truely understand it.
"Ethical and rational humans simply must have concepts of good an evil. If a man's (even if that man is a believer in God) concept of good and evil is flawed, then that man must be wrong about some things. His senses are wrong, his logic is wrong, and his faith is wrong too. How can you, apparently a believer, say that anything is right or wrong (including cloning Tasmanian Tigers) when you yourself admit that you don't know what is right or wrong?"
Now I'm sure you've seen a magician before. While your senses may tell you "hey, he pulled a coin out of that guy's ear!", does that mean your reasoning capabilities suddenly surrender to what you see? (I should hope no one in this forum is so inclined!) For most people, of course not - they're trying to logically deduce what happened to explain what they sensed. Faith would only come in where you truely believed (or didn't believe) he used magic. If you believed he used magic, then your logic would reflect that faith. On the other hand, if your faith tells you he is no magician (or that there is no such thing as magic) but your logic fails to explain how he did it, is your faith flawed or your logic?
"If you can judge Man, you can judge God by those same standards. If you can't judge God, you can't judge Man. So what's it going to be: when you want to know if something is right or not, are you going to think for yourself, or are you going to quote what philosophers wrote thousands of years ago before even the most basic principles of the universe were understood?"
That is like saying that because you are a Linux guru, you are fit to give medical advice. God(s) are usually considered to be beings of infinite capcity: power, knowledge, presence. Mankind has been, and will likely always be finite (aka mortal) beings and as such cannot grasp concepts that exist beyond what our minds and senses tell us. Or to use a parable of sorts: Say I'm a windows user. I know how to install programs and even setup and installed my own printer. Now I come over to you, a Linux hacker, and start telling you how you should be working on your project. I may think I know alot about computers, but by comparison, I know nothing. I think it's wrong to judge people regardless of circumstances. I prefer to inform "I think this is how it should work", be informed "No, it has to work this way because..." and collaborate/compromise.
Just because somthing CAN be done, does not neccesitate that it MUST be done. Reasoning should entail the premise, the solution and the conclusion. In other words, if a there is a problem: extinct animal, and we have a solution: cloning, what is the conclusion from implementing the solution? An animal that is no longer viable in it's former habitat? Unlimited zoo exhibits? Pets for the rich and powerful? Exotic dishes at 5 star restaurants? Or we could try this: We have a problem: people using email to facilitate crime, a solution: carnivore, should we just roll out the barrel and hope for the best? Or should we take a serious look at this and say "should we even consider doing this?"
Don't allow your faith (that organized religion is evil) blind you to reason. Faith and reason both have their places.
The Doctor is Out...
Actually, I think this is should be mod'd (-1) off topic and (-1) flame bait.
And here I thought that geeks, being the subject of persecution by the "norms" were supposed to be a better, more understanding lot....
Well, some of us are anyhow...
The Doctor is Out...
While I found your post to be well written and outlined the Kennedy theories nicely, I do have a small correction regarding the U2 incident.
The U2 flights were authorized during the Eisenhower administration and it was during his watch that the infamous Garry Powers incident occurred.
While Kennedy may not have been directly involved with that incident, it caused a great loss of face for the office of the President for years to come...
The Doctor is In...(his room watching the History channel)
Actually, there are a lot MORE costs associated with producing a book than with creating music.
Of course both the artist and writer get paid for their work - let move on to the ancillary costs:
- While the artist has to pay for recording time the writer has to pay for a editor/proofer to make sure the work is coherent and has no spelling and gramatical errors.
- While the artist is paying someone to develope some nice CD insert artwork etc, the writer is paying to have someone design the cover for their book - usually 2 designs because the hardcover version is different than the softcover print run.
- While the artist pays for post-production work, the writer/publisher has to pay for prepress work - that means getting color proofs done and creating plates to put on the presses. I'm not sure about the major publishing house presses, but your typical metal plate can only have 8 pages and needs to be replaced every 100-200K impressions - all at the low, low price of $40 per plate. Multiply by 4 if in full color. BTW, anyone know how much a gold master costs to produce and how many CD's can be stamped out by it?
- Materials cost for a CD are easily under $.25 in those volumes. Paper cost for volume printing runs around $.005 per sheet for plain Jane white paper. For a 200 page book, you're talking $.50 in material cost alone - and you haven't even run it through the press yet.
I won't even touch the finishing aspects of production but book binding is considerably more difficult and expensive than assembling a jewel case and sticking the CD and insert inside.
I can only imagine that distribution costs for books are considerably higher than CDs factoring the weight and volume disparity.
But yet I can get a paperback book from the local store for $5 vs. $12 for a CD.
I'll let you work the math.
The Doctor is Out... (Getting his Diablo II fix)
Actually, if you decide to go with a Xerox service contract, you DO pay for each copy that comes out of the machine.
Can't say about the sales guys getting a piece of that action though.
The Doctor is Out... (Making the copies!)
I hate to burst your bubble about the technical superiority being the cause of MicroSoft's huge share of the browser market. Is it a good product? Sure, it's not bad. But, the fact that every PC (ok 99.9999%)ships with IE installed has nothing to do with it? The fact that every AOL user has to use IE to use their service has nothing to do with it? If technical superiority is truely the measure of whether or not something was adopted, we'd all have BetaMax's instead of VCR's.
As for your "they can just get another browser...", broadband is still not ubiquitous and most people I know still use dial-up modem connections. Are you going to sit and download a browser for 1-2 days or just take what you've been given. Even still, can you show me where I can uninstall IE5 and free up those resources for my new browser? Or do I have to put up with effectively running both so long as I'm on a Windows box? (Remember, the reason IE is so fast is because it preloads everything on boot-up and those memory resources cannot be freed up for other applications!)
Your anaology is not bad but you down't take it far enough.
The car is mearely the means of transport (aka the browser), but MicroSoft controls much more than just that.
They control the filling stations (FrontPage) "Sorry buddy, you can't fill up your tank here - you're not MS compliant", the roads (not yet, but they hope to with IIS) "You can't drive that here - those aren't MS approved tires!" and of course infrastructure that maintains it all (Windows in its various incarnations).
Finally, as to your argument that the other companies should simply start "developing faster". Do you really believe that MicroSoft would look at a new feature in Mozilla and say "Hey, that's neat, let's do that too!", rather than "Hey, they got a new feature we don't have! Release the PR hounds and flood the media touting how non-(MS)standards compliant they are!"
If MS was truely concerned with standards a the betterment of the Internet as a whole, they would propose their changes to the W3C (yes, they are members after all) and be first to market these innovations.
Was Netscape any better? No. Would I bash them as readily as MS? Yes. But look at this picture: one company is sponsoring a project to make a truely standards compliant browser and the other just released a new browser without added compliance but plenty of new proprietary features. One of these is Netscape, the other is MicroSoft - I'll let you figure which is which.
The Doctor is Out... (of time - back to work!)
I think you might have that timeline a little skewed.
Back in '95, Windows 3.xx was the MS operating system of choice for the venerable 386 computers and the 486 was the defacto standard system being sold off the shelves - also with 3.xx.
Windows '95 came and claimed it would run on a 486 with 8 megs of memory. I managed to get it up and running on a 486DX2-66 with 12 megs of RAM and it was a sorry sight indeed. To get proper performance out of Win'95 you needed at least a Pentium 50 with 16 megs of RAM.
I don't recall MicroSoft being so ostentatious as to make the claim it would even load on a 386.
But the real argument is not whether the hardware needs to catch-up (if the OS ran yesterday on box X, it will still run tomorrow on same), but if website Y is viewable on your browser today does not mean your browser will be able to render it tomorrow if they decide to take advantage of MS's "new features".
The nice thing is they may not even know they're doing it. The mere act of upgrading to the latest FrontPage will ensure that these new tags are automagically inserted were appropriate to break browser compatability.
It not that MicroSoft is evil, it's that they truely beileve they're doing what's best for the industry that has me worried....
The Doctor is Out...(pining for the simple days where "browser" meant "mosaic")
Whoops - guess that teaches me to stay up til 2am watching "The Green Mile" (Excellent movie even at 3hrs 20min) and trying to post the morning after...
Thanks for the correction and the recommended reading - I'm finishing up Cryptonomicon and was looking for something new to tackle...
The Doctor is Out... (Like a light...too many hours... too little sleep...)
"In your why ask why?" - you make the misconception that why and how are different questions. From a scientific stand point, the two are synonymous. Why does a plane fly and how does a plane fly both address aerodynamics. Now I agree in some contexts they differ (why does the pilot fly the plane vs. how does the pilot fly the plane) but scientists are as obsessed with the "why's" of the universe as people of a more religious bent.
:)
The crux of the argument is that scientists aren't tackling the biggest how - HOW will this knowledge be used? In the seemingly blind pursuit of knowledge, they seem to ignore the implications of what they are doing.
As for religions being based on fear - uhm, I'm not sure which religions you've been exposed to, but it has been my experience that most religions are based on hope and an attempt to find inner peace...but then I've only been exposed to a few religions Shinto, Hindu, Buddism, Islam and 6 flavors of Christianity that I can recall off the top of my head. Sucks being the product of a "fearful, hateful" Catholic education.
As for your list of the "Christianity's Most Wanted...", I think you've been hanging around with the wrong croud. I'm not positive, but that sounded like the manifesto for the KKK, not any of the Christian groups I'm aware of (other than the KKK itself - but I don't consider them to be a true Christian religion).
I find it sad for someone that otherwise seems to be a rational, thinking being uses such stereotyped, biased and otherwise skewed facts to base their logic upon. In the words of Sun Tsu (actually a paraphrase): Know the terrain, know the enemy, know yourself. To know all of these is to ensure victory, to know two of these - victory is uncertain, to know one of these is doubtful, and to know none of these is failure. I think you know yourself, and the terrain (argument) but fail to know your enemy (organized religion - fill in the blank here).
As I close, I leave you with the irony part of my retort. Do you realize where your sig came from? As I seem to recall, that quote would have to be attributed to one St. Thomas Aquinas - a Catholic theologian.
The Doctor is Out...(Fighting his way to the 19th hole...)
After reading your (and other's posts) I can see there are some basic misconceptions at work here....
"Look if Nike opens up a plant in country X they certainly don't get out guns and force people to work there. People work there because they think it is better than doing whatever it was they were doing before (subsistance farming or being unemployed)."
Listen to yourself - these people are faced with the decision of working for X Corp. or starving/living in abject poverty. In poker, they'd call that "holding all the cards". X Corp. can dictate outrageously low wages, unsafe working conditions and/or rape the land and what choice to the locals have? A drowning man will gladly grab the business end of a sword if it means averting death for a little while longer.
"By droping trade barriers we merely give them more options...they could still choose to trade only amoungst themselves with no harm (in principle). All this going on about decent wages for third world countries is just a clever way to say "we don't want to lost american jobs." If this actually hurt third world countries they wouldn't sign the treaty would they?"
The only people given more options are the multi-corps. While I grant you that protectionist trade barriers hinder economic growth, some of those barriers are in place to force countries to improve human rights and environmental laws. The WTO would have us lose the ability to say "Hey, if you want to trade with us, you'd better start educating those kids instead of working them 16 hours a day". You see, if anything, 3rd world countries (governments) would be lining up to sign the treaty because now western-based corps can pick up and move and still do business as usual back home, at a fraction of the labor expense, with none of those pesky trade barriers to eat into the profit margins.
"Secondly, and this is the biggest misconception of them all, is that it doesn't screw america. Suppose some american jobs get exported oversees... this means that the people overseas can produce this product cheaper then we can. Hence we can buy more of the product. Some american workers might lost their jobs but someone else will hire them (the number of people with good job records who are actively looking but cannot find jobs is almost minimal). Thus america produces just as much as we did before AND we get more products shipped in from overseas. We are a richer country and workers can buy things cheaper. "
I don't know if it was you or another poster (my apologies for not properly giving credit where credit is due), but the U.S. is in a period of remarkably low unemployment (partly thanks to the redefinition of $6.50/hr jobs at McDonald's et al. as "gainful employment" - nevermind you'd have to work two full-time jobs like that to just get by - and forget insurance... but that's another subject) and you're seeking to eliminate jobs? And where is Joe Steelworker supposed to find a job? Here's the scenario - we've got two steel mills, X Corp. and Y Corp. X Corp. moves its operations to a foreign country that they can get resources and labor for pennies on the dollar (no nastly health, safety, or environmental regulations to abide by!) Thanks to the WTO, they can bring their goods bad into the U.S. (can't erect any trade barriers forbading exploitive products!) and sell them cheaper under cutting Y Corp. because it still plays by all the health, safety, and environmental rules. Y Corp., in order to stay competitive, likewise moves its operations out of the country. Who then is left to employ the workers of both corps?
There are some of those that would argue "why don't they just go out and get trained as IT people?" Two reasons:
1) People have aptitudes, areas that they are good at. I no more claim that I could retrain as a mechanic [or fill in trade here] than I would expect them to grasp the nuances of assembly programming. Just as I have some difficulty grasping mechanical processes (as my ACT's will attest) I don't expect a person who's worked with their hands all their life to formulate algorithms , code [insert language here] and be any good at it (i.e. marketable).
2) Even if they all had the aptitude, there is still a question of simple ecomonics - education doesn't come for free. I don't know what most people's backgrounds are here on Slashdot, but I come from a blue collar family. My dad worked hard as a tradesman to support our family and lots of times we lived check to check. Now, when you've been laid off, and you've had to live like that - how in the heck are you going to pay for training/education that starts at $5000? Your first concern is to keep that roof over your family's head, food on that table and clothes on their backs. After survival needs are met do you have the luxury of affording eduction and that usually goes to the kids so they and their families don't have to go through that.
It has been my experience that most "laborers" are good, honest folks just trying to make a better life for their family(at least in the Midwest). On the other hand, many white collar people I run into are more concerned with their portfolio than their coworkers. Sadly, it seems it's exactly these kinds of "go getters" that become the phb's of tomorrow... (Sorry to generalize, I know there's a bad apple in any given group - just trying to convey my experiences...)
I understand what it's like to grow up in a blue-collar family. I also enjoy the benefits of a good education and everything an IT career has to offer. Sure we have our share of corupt union leaders, but don't try and tell me all publicly traded companies have human rights and the environment at heart. Take a step back, look at the big picture. Open your eyes, open your mind - there's alot more to this than what the media tells you...
The Doctor is Out... (Fighting the good fight...)