The idea that a place like Liberia (characterized by unrest, lawlessness, etc) would represent a libertarian ideal is of course one advanced only as a pejorative -- a sort of parallel to Godwin's law;)
"Voting is firmly within the states' domain of control. If the states need to properly identify people, then it's upon them to make state ID cards. Even if we do have a national ID card, there's no constitutional way for the federal government to force the states to use them."
Depends what you mean by Constitutional. If you mean, "by a sane, rational, straightforward, other-than-precariously-strained reading," then, Yeah, you're right.
If you mean instead "how the U.S. Supreme Court has actually interpreted the Constitution, through a series of decisions seemingly based on arrogance, willful blindness, or illogic," though, I think you'd find otherwise.
The commerce clause gets used to justify just about anything in Federal law; I would be completely unsurprised to hear argued that because the components of voting machines are part of the stream of interstate commerce, or because they're assembled by workers (the terms of whose employment can affect interstate commerce), that the Federal government claims an ongoing interest in the terms of their use.
Alternatively, the Feds have devised the following system for quasi-Constitutional control of many state actions:
1) provide states a stream of money for certain tasks, such as highway maintenance and operation of government-run schools, sometimes tied to certain agreements by the recipient states wrt behavior on their part. 2) attach new conditions. Drinking age is... 21! Speed limit is... 55! 3) Watch and laugh as the states cringe and whine but eventually give in to the new conditions, in order to get the money they've become addicted to.
Note, I'm not *defending* that system, which I consider perverse and counter to the intent of the founding dads.
timothy
p.s. I'd look up some cases, but I'm procrastinating enough. Google "Shreveport rate cases" though:)
By assuming the worst, you make the worst out of the current situation as well. I say: in a civilized country, citizens need no guns for protection.
What this amounts to currently, is a trust that the army won't turn their weapons on their own, which seems a fair assumption (though it sometimes happens, in some places). It also implies that the US isn't a civilized country, but that's another discussion."
Among other places that originally or at least putatively benevolent governments have in living memory* turned military force on the citizens which they ought to be protecting (and often in the name of protecting them):
- Italy - France - Germany - Russia - China - Korea - The Philippines - Armenia - Cambodia - Chile - South Africa
And of course there are a lot of places where "government" per se is too strong a word (or simply the wrong word) to describe the societal cause of general oppression; some people have tongue-in-cheek described places like Liberia and Rwanda as the logical extension of libertarian ideals for having little government to speak of, certainly not in the way that most Western countries' current governments. However, that's not how anyone would have described Germany or France (for instance) just a few years before the war and genocide of the 40s.
To be clear, the U.S. isn't entirely clear of the taint of government oppression (though it's not, as some shrilly maintain, anything like the epitome of it). Even if you don't accept the argument completely, it seems at least a reasonable idea to investigate that one good reason the U.S. has not yet faced an actually tyrannical government is that such a government would have to control a large landmass with an armed and cantankerous citizenry. While you may disagree, that's the answer ("Freedom for ourselves and others.") that those Americans in favor of the right to keep and bear arms would supply to your question of "what is it giving now?"
Cheers,
timothy
* That is, there are people still alive who can recall the oppression in each of these, even if they're not of my generation.
I wonder which country you're referring to (with such stringent punishment for possessing a lethal weapon).
An interesting (but tangential) thought is the frequent conflation in government-run schools in the U.S. of "weapon" with "anything that can be used as a weapon." (Not that this is confined to schools, of course.)
I certainly wouldn't want to be sent to jail for 25 years for possessing a nail clipper on government property (or my own); see
"sgi" example is a good one of how an Emperor may choose to be clothed. I graduated from the University of Texas; while I was there, a (famous, large) advertising agency called GSD&M -- some of the founders of which were Texas alums -- took on as a pro bono work a massive "rebranding" campaign for the University, busily brainstorming and no doubt exchanging heated and eloquent memos, then rigorous focus-grouping, survey-taking, and all the rest.
What'd they come up with? What grand vision, what summary of the hopes, goals, and accomplishments of the University did these grand poobahs arrive at?
"We're Texas."
Yup -- as silly as it sounds. "We're Texas." I forget the ludicrous amount of money they claimed this service would have been worth if they hadn't donated it, but frankly, I'd rather they have donated that much money's worth of bull semen instead, because (within limits) that's a commodity that's resellable -- unlike the two-word cow-patty they actually supplied.
timothy
p.s. "We're Texas." Say it a few more times -- sorta slides right off the brain.
First, there are jerks, and there are nice people. They may not be especially evenly distributed, but both are widespread, and sometimes they exist in the same human bodies.
1) People like to have exclusive knowledge: how to wear clothes "correctly" (to whatever standard one cares about) isn't intuitive; hip nightclubs are only hip when they're on the cusp between unknown and widely known, so people can know that they know what other people know. Not *all* other people, that is -- just the ones who you want to know that they're either your social equals or social inferiors.
2) People vary in their ability to grasp particular bodies of knowledge or particular skills; some people (not me!) find long command-line incancations "natural" or at least "easy." Of that select group, some of them are friendly, pleasant, helpful and grasp that not everyone shares identical interests, skills or thus-far life experiences; others are flat out jerks to others.
3) People are curious and contentious; they like to be right on a given topic, and to engage in argument when they think someone else is wrong. That's why Slashdot exists.
3) Familiarity, group membership and certain knowledge are all psyschologically comforting, whether it's defined by in-group status or out-group status. Hence religion, and "religious" arguments over silly things. Regular Slashdot readers know that people (not all the *same* people, though many are trolls who'd be willing to hurt anyone handy, just for fun) are willing to say nasty things about Windows; about Linux; about GNOME / KDE / WindowMaker / Anything with a GUI; about particular text editors. Some of these arguments are lighthearted, some of them seem like the products of bad, angry childhood experiences.
4) I've seen arrogant, dismissive vitriol from Windows users, from Linux users, and from people with a broad, cross-platform interest in supreme jerkdom. My experience has been mostly good in seeking help from those in the free software world, and my personal experience with other than non-free software is usually lousy not because of fellow users, but because of annoying software. But that's because various preferences keep me from using much other than free software.
In fact, one reason (not the top or best one, but a real one) I don't like to use Windows is that I've seen from Windows users so much of the same arrogance and exclusion that people seem to be attributing here to Linux users. There's arrogance aplenty in the computer world like any other domain of life; some people's self-esteem hinges on making sure that others around them are kept down and aware of their inferiority. (Or, phrased more positively, people enjoy the in-jokes and belonging of being w/ similar fellows, which exludes others aside from malice.)
"Also, it's strange that this article mentions Rockbox only in the context of iPods, considering that it was originally designed with Archos and iRiver players in mind, and has only been working on iPods for a couple months. Hence, many things which work nicely for other targets are still quite broken on iPod."
I wrote about putting it on a 4th-generation iPod only because that's what I had, and was pleased with the transformation. I know it's not quite to the level of Rockbox on some other players, but even in its current state I find it really useful. And, I did at least *mention* that it started out that way;) (With Archos players, that is.)
"It does have a very active dev community (I can cvs update every 3 or 5 days and see a new major feature working) and is a lot of fun to tinker with, but as far as a 'better' replacement for the iPod firmware, I really wouldn't say it's quite there yet."
I do see some rough edges, but in the couple of days I've been using it, it strikes me as superior to Apple's firmware *for me.* Would be nice if recording worked, and greyscale video on the iPod screen would be neat, but... beggars / choosers.
Well... I like drag-and-drop management, and don't much like the iTunes interface. That's not slagging on the iTunes interface per se -- only in the way that it relates to my own brain / tastes, both of which are notoriously poor. (If I ever say "iTunes sucks!" I would mean that only for me personally, at least wrt aesthetics.) I have my own ideas of how to organize my audio tracks, and sometimes I'll drag a folder of assorted files (some audio, some text, some other) onto my iPod when using it as a hard drive; a nice thing about Rockbox is that I can then instantly access the audio tracks in there, whereas with the Apple firmware, they'd just be sitting there on the drive, until it was put in the iPod DB with iTunes / gtkPod / Amarok / etc.
Also, of course, iTunes doesn't yet run natively on Linux (I think it does using WINE, though I've not investigated that since I saw it demo'd a few years ago).
I guess they don't want to become a true non-profit org for some reason."
Maybe not an official IRS-sanctified one. But I think they're a true non-profit, more so than they'd like. I promise to give them some money once I start *making* money again rather than spending it all on school;)
When I'm at the airport, I want to have the following T-shirt:
FRONT TEXT: I'm carrying a picture of myself. BACK TEXT: Do you feel safer yet?
"Proper" ID (that is, rigorously checked, hard to fake, and accurate), for all of the good civil liberty arguments against it, might actually prevent certain types of crime. Them's the breaks.
Would it deter people who don't mind dying in order to obtain a religo-political goal? Well, it didn't deter the September 11 hijackers, at least not all of them.
The only way to travel free of possible terrorism is if everyone agrees to be schlepped around nude, drugged, and packed in Jello. Including the terrorists.
Hey, the Dept of Education (and several of the others, Labor and Energy being at the top of my list) certainly *ought* to go; Reagan didn't fulfull that promise well enough.
Speaking of small government and superflous departments -- check out the book The Undercover Economist, by Tim Harford; he makes some IMO quite funny jabs at the Cameroonian Department of Tourism, whose chief job seems to be discouraging tourism;) If you're in a Borders or similar bookstore, I think the relevant segment starts on page 177.
Well, on the show, partly for FCC reasons and I'm sure partly because of the humor (which is partly based on getting around the FCC rules by pointing out their stupidity, etc etc), Penn says "Bulls Hit." Don't blame me for that!:)
It seemed silly to me at first, but now that I've seen it a few times, I actually like this Ambilight thing. Now, with the caveat that *I* am unqualified to do this, and am only making an idle observation, it seems that a PC with webcam (webnbcam pointed at your LCD panel TV) and an LED array behind the panel would make it a reasonable proposition to recreate this effect. (Software on the PC would analyze the image from the webcam to see what dominant color should be ordered up from the LED arrray...
That naughty Penn has been referring repeatedly on-air (well... for me, on downloaded MP3s) to Penn & Teller's Bulls Hit (pronounced as in "Male Bovines Strike"), but that's clearly a not-so-veiled way to get on air a common expletive, with a meaning more like "Male Bovines' Excretia."
And I'm sure that a) Penn's reaction would be funnier and smarter than typical toilet-humor shock-jocks (among whom I am not counting H. Stern, who clearly is not "typical," and has skewered the FCC chairman for his nanny-statism), and b) would bring more listeners to his show. That benefits me, because I like listening to it, and more listeners means greater chance of long-term survival.
So, please, FCC hear my plea -- stop that awful Penn Gillette from polluting our children's airwaves with his iconoclastic, caustic humor and dangerous insights!
Well, it's nice and warm in the time-warp bubble, I assure you.
Compared to the "future" media (music either downloaded for a fee, or on high-density CD-shaped media, or I suppose sold on flash media or other newfangledness), CDs are good IMO because the players are everywhere (new optical drives playing CD-shaped disks are all compatible, but old CD-ROM drives are out of luck playing Blue-Ray / HD-DVD / etc), and because they're *physical.* That has its drawbacks, but I'm glad that my CDs -- mostly in cold storage now -- are still around for me to rip anew if necessary. New recording techniques can be higher density of course, but most downloadable music (whatever its recording pedigree) is highly compressed; with CDs I can choose the compression level (at least up to the limits of the disk;)).
Also, related to the ubiquity of the players, is that the disks' content are mostly amenable to no-loss conversion to other data carrier, and they have to be if they're going to play on any standard CD player. (Not to argue about Sony rootkits etc -- that's why I say 'mostly.')That's an issue I wish wasn't important, but there ya have it.
This story grabbed my eye in part because last week I bought CDs (well, a 3-CD set) for the first time in a year or two. "Walk the Line" made me curious about Johnny Cash, so I picked up for $17 this triple set of CDs with about 50 tracks from his years at Sun Records.
I like CDs. They're not perfect, but of the various media for recorded music that have been around during my lifetime, they're my favorite by a good margin.
1) If well treated, they're durable. Yes; LPs are, too, and for the true preservationist, perhaps more so. I'm not a preservationist, and like (I suspect) most people, my vinyl was never cleaned and has been subject to some unconscionable treatment. (I try to forgive myself, though.) I won't argue about the edge cases -- but I think for most people, given what I perceive to be typical storage and handling, CDs win on that count.
2) They don't unravel in a player like tapes can (and for me, have).
3) They're a decent size. Sure, a bit smaller with the same data capacity would be nice -- there are certainly some things I wish would fit on a CD uninterrupted that just won't fit there uncompressed, but it's longer than one side of a recorded / recordable cassette at least. But, now that CD players are so widespread, I'm happy enough with the length to accept it cheerfully. It's pretty easy to stuff a few CDs in a bag / briefcase / knapsack -- harder with LPs. (Yeah, I know -- I should be comparing to iPods, flash drives, etc. Except I'm not.)
4) They sound good, to my lead ears. Perfect? No; I've certainly encountered some badly mastered (or perhaps badly manufactured) CDs, but a well-recorded CD can sound great. My ears aren't the best, but I sense a lot of twaddle in some critiques of CDs' sound in which people seem to think they necessarily sound awful, or at best mediocre. That seems like quite a stretch! However, I don't want to fight with anyone who prefers wax cylinders, 256-bit-per-sample digital recordings played through a tube amplifier feeding convoluted-horn single-driver speakers, or anything else. But I'm sticking with "good" as a conservative description of typical CD sound.
5) Liner notes. Now *some* vinyl has great liner notes -- especially when they come with fold-out jackets etc. The size of an LP results in some really neat album cover art. But I'll take extensive liner notes (lyrics, little essays, whatever) over album art most days of the week.
I'm for taxes (to the extent that I can be for taxes) only to the degree that they're flat. Flat flat flat. No deductions, no loopholes. (However, I've yet to read some of the interesting other ideas out there wrt to variants on flat taxing...)
I dunno about the grandparent post, but *I* would have them...
- spend less, spend less, spend less, and - use sales taxes *rather than* income taxes, or - at least vastly simplify the tax structure. - make the tax form a place to specify mandatory taxable income, Yes (until the amendment is repealed;)) but also a place to register preferences. Even though I always check No, because I think public-funded political campaigns are bad on every level I can think of, that little box asking me if I want to contribute to the matching funds program is my favorite part of the form. Why not also ask me if I want to support NASA, the NEA, the giant Agriculture Department bureaucracy, and quite a few other things? I might be a softie for NASA and certain others, but I don't like them being imposed on me.
I can hear two big objections lurching toward me:
1) "But we *vote* to make choices! We live in a Republic, not a pure democracy! Our elected officials like the NEA (et al), and this here social contract says that you have to pretend to like it, too, or else all of society devolves / state of nature / red in tooth and claw / anarchy / death."
To this, I say "Balderdash!" Sure, it's a Republic, and I'm glad. But the ballot box is only one of many ways that Democracy lets people's opinions be heard: that's why people write their Congressman, establish campaigns of persuasion, etc. And direct voting with dollars sounds like a good way to me for people to check arrogant government. Not perfect -- just good.
2) "If people could just willy nilly *choose* to pay or not pay for things, no one would pay, and the government would collapse."
I suppose there's that risk. But a) I'm actually for the moment only shouting for voluntariness for the programs that do not immediately preserve the safety / security (including financial) of the country and b) again, that problem of governmental arrogance. Technically, our government (in the U.S., but in any self-declared democracy) *is* us; seen that way, any move to cut taxes, or to minimize their impact for an individual, can be construed as "greed" and "anti-social." However, since the government in reality has its own agenda (or rather a whole passel of them -- "the gub'mint" is only a convenient abstraction for a mind-boggling collection of agencies, sub-agencies, departments and other divisions, and each of *those* has its own agendas and sub-agendas, too), and does not in reality act as a finely tuned detector of the Will of the People, I think reducing the scope of the items that the State can *demand* we pay is a good move. If no one wants to fund through their taxes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (or is it now for "Public Media"? Too lazy to check right now), I'm OK with that. If the reality is that most people *don't* want to pay for it, the flip side of the argument looks worse to me than the A-side ever looks good. "You don't like this, so I'm taking away your choice to reject it" should be reserved for the really important items, not just in the realm of taxation but in life generally. Coercion is bad.
My main complaints about Federal taxes are not just generalized griping that taxes are imposed in the first place (though I have objections to their magnitude), but rather a) that the system for calculating them is far too complex, and b) that much of the spending is badly aimed.
I would be willing to pay somewhat higher taxes than I do right now (though I surely would not prefer to), if I could get in exchange a system of taxation I considered fairer in its construction and administration. I am not sure (having gotten behind on my recreational reading on taxes) where this number comes from, but I've heard certain flat-taxers toss around the figure 17% as being a appropriate value -- I'm guessing (but it's not important right now) that this is according to certain calculations a good value for getting approximately the same revenue as the graduated income tax does now.
After all, the government may attack us with teeth, but ropes (on necks) are more conventional, at least since the invention of the gallows...
However, tax crimes nowadays don't generally involve a sentence of death. (Which, since the bowline on a bight slips easily, might make it the perfect knot for a symbolic hanging...
This land-grab for providing public access for free by a private corporation is a travesty. Just think about all the people whose property those archives are -- what about *their* rights?
Waitaminute... Oh, yeah. Nevermind.
timothy
"promoting hatred" -- usually that's not the case
on
Yahoo Reverses Allah Ban
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Hate" is a strong word.
There are people who want to "promote hatred" in the world, no doubt. The organizers of the KKK (especially present-day ones; the originals might get at least some product-of-their-times credit), recruiters for angry, retributionist separatists of any stripe, etc, qualify as intending to promote hatred. But that's a pretty harsh and specific charge, and not everyone will qualify (to our great benefit).
A lot of other people though, no matter how repugnant their views might be to you or me, have no interest in spreading emnity, even if you think their views are offensive, insenstive, chauvenistic, etc; not all negative opinions are *hatred* -- not even mocking or otherwise depracting opinions. Some rivalries are genuine but often friendly, and are the basis of a paradoxical bond based on a continuing series of mutual competition (Aussies / New Zealanders); some are primarily political -- or socio-political / social-religio-political / whatever (like Greek v. Cypriot student groups on U.S. campuses arguing the proper government of Cyprus), where opinions are strong, contentious and incompatible, but not necessarily resulting in the personal emotion of hatred; some are true, real-deal group HATRED. And of course, there are the various "pride" groups representing skin tones light or dark, some of which seem outward-directed ("we don't like *them*!") and some more inward-directed ("We like *us*!), and into which some people read hatred just in their existence, even if roundly denied.
It's especially hard to evaluate intent when all you've got to go on is something as ambiguous as an email address, chosen often on the spur of the moment and for reasons that could include memorability, humor (which might be obscure or contrarian), uniqueness (jsmith876548 is no fun), obscurity (so as to provide a useful gap between online and real-life names), which way the wind is blowing, etc.
Some email addresses might also be taken by other than the "side" that a glance might suggest, too -- in the same way that some web sites with names that sound like those of outwardly, frankly racist groups are instead parked by folks who'd rather sit on them or redirect to anti-racist sites instead.
Oddly enough... a professor of mine (well -- talked at orientation, will probably later actually be one of my profs) gave this illustration as some sort of cornball illustration about "obviousness" (if I got the gist of it); basically, he filled a jar with large rocks, asked "Is the jar full?" Some students said Yes (which is true -- *in the sense that it was full of large rocks*); he proved 'em wrong by filling it with smaller rocks instead. Full? No, because there's still sand to go! (Though also true in the same sense as before -- "full of" requires a some standard of granularity; we're all just a little bit "full of it.") Full yet? No, because water is next! Finally full, to the audience's general satisfaction.
I wasn't sure what he was getting at; I pointed out that atoms (including those making up the molecules of water) are still mostly empty space. At this, he got a bit flustered, as if I'd shouted out the punchline to a joke he was still telling, but I wasn't trying to -- I figured that was the next Zen master step of his lesson about perceptions and truth:)
Oh, well. He just went on, with a snarky comment about "Ignoring Mr. Wizard back there..."
"To get a real breakthrough, you'd have to find a way to do without moving the sensor over the image. You can already image a piece of paper with a digital camera -- and some digital cameras are very tiny indeed. But they don't include the ability to correct the image for the arbitrary positioning of the camera. Invent that, and you'd have a handheld scanner worth talking about."
It's not perfect, but my camera -- a Casio EX-Z120 -- actually has exactly this feature built in. Casio calls it "Business Shot"; there are a few variants of this mode built in to the camera (though why it needs to be different for business cards vs. letter-size, I don't know). Upshot: If you take a shot, against a sufficiently contrasty background, of a basically rectangular item, such as a piece of paper with printing on it, the camera attempts to locate the edges and square things up. When I say "not perfect", I'm being kind -- it's easily confused, as a matter of fact, and I find this mode is actually more interesting for creating purposeful distortion than useful in its intended role; Ah, well. Also, this mode forces you down to 1600x1200 resolution -- which, if you're scanning a letter-size document for its content (rather than for the archives of an art museum or something), is probably not too harsh a limitation.
So -- the technology, though as yet in its early phases, is already out there, and will surely improve. Minox* should license that algorithm from Casio and start selling digital Minox cameras of the tiny shape favored by spies... perfect for photographing purloined letters.
timothy
*I just noticed a low-end Minox digicam the other day which looks very close in size to the EX-Z120, in fact, and also uses AA batteries. Maybe it's made in the same factory;)
a) Can't overload on resolution per se;) I'd rather have a good 5MP sensor than a poor 7MP one, but holding quality constant (to the degree that can be done), I definitely want more resolution.
a^) a bright, wide lens coupled with ultra-mega resolution has one advantage over a big telephoto, in that it's easier for a wide lens to be bright. There are some cameras with constant brightness (or nearly so) through their range, but the cameras I've ever owned are much darker extended. The wide / bright / hi-res combination has downsides, too -- long lenses allow effects wide ones don't, and don't distort edges in the same way.
b) Sure -- given druthers / realities, including that infinite resolution just isn't possible, a telephoto lens is good and important -- I'm glad I have one on my camera! Even when cameras have 30MP typical, I'm sure I'll still want some degree of zoom. But I know that lots of my photos end up with areas of detail that I wish I could zoom in on and in on; last night I was pleased to find that I could actually read the (incredibly sappy, adolescent) poetry in the hand of a girl whose photo I took several years ago with a 3.1MP Nikon Coolpix. In that case, it worked:) A foot or so greater distance, and that detail which IMO makes the shot much more interesting would have been a blur -- is she holding a shopping list there? In the best of all possible worlds, every shot would be perfectly composed to include the elements the photog wants, forever. *My* reality is that I've never thought "Boy, I'm glad *this* isn't higher res!" unless the picture happens to incude me.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope I used both of those words correctly (I think so ...), or at least close enough to correctly that I don't need to be embarrassed ;)
timothy
Yes, agreed!
;)
The idea that a place like Liberia (characterized by unrest, lawlessness, etc) would represent a libertarian ideal is of course one advanced only as a pejorative -- a sort of parallel to Godwin's law
timothy
"Voting is firmly within the states' domain of control. If the states need to properly identify people, then it's upon them to make state ID cards. Even if we do have a national ID card, there's no constitutional way for the federal government to force the states to use them."
... 21! Speed limit is ... 55!
:)
Depends what you mean by Constitutional. If you mean, "by a sane, rational, straightforward, other-than-precariously-strained reading," then, Yeah, you're right.
If you mean instead "how the U.S. Supreme Court has actually interpreted the Constitution, through a series of decisions seemingly based on arrogance, willful blindness, or illogic," though, I think you'd find otherwise.
The commerce clause gets used to justify just about anything in Federal law; I would be completely unsurprised to hear argued that because the components of voting machines are part of the stream of interstate commerce, or because they're assembled by workers (the terms of whose employment can affect interstate commerce), that the Federal government claims an ongoing interest in the terms of their use.
Alternatively, the Feds have devised the following system for quasi-Constitutional control of many state actions:
1) provide states a stream of money for certain tasks, such as highway maintenance and operation of government-run schools, sometimes tied to certain agreements by the recipient states wrt behavior on their part.
2) attach new conditions. Drinking age is
3) Watch and laugh as the states cringe and whine but eventually give in to the new conditions, in order to get the money they've become addicted to.
Note, I'm not *defending* that system, which I consider perverse and counter to the intent of the founding dads.
timothy
p.s. I'd look up some cases, but I'm procrastinating enough. Google "Shreveport rate cases" though
By assuming the worst, you make the worst out of the current situation as well. I say: in a civilized country, citizens need no guns for protection.
What this amounts to currently, is a trust that the army won't turn their weapons on their own, which seems a fair assumption (though it sometimes happens, in some places). It also implies that the US isn't a civilized country, but that's another discussion."
Among other places that originally or at least putatively benevolent governments have in living memory* turned military force on the citizens which they ought to be protecting (and often in the name of protecting them):
- Italy
- France
- Germany
- Russia
- China
- Korea
- The Philippines
- Armenia
- Cambodia
- Chile
- South Africa
And of course there are a lot of places where "government" per se is too strong a word (or simply the wrong word) to describe the societal cause of general oppression; some people have tongue-in-cheek described places like Liberia and Rwanda as the logical extension of libertarian ideals for having little government to speak of, certainly not in the way that most Western countries' current governments. However, that's not how anyone would have described Germany or France (for instance) just a few years before the war and genocide of the 40s.
To be clear, the U.S. isn't entirely clear of the taint of government oppression (though it's not, as some shrilly maintain, anything like the epitome of it). Even if you don't accept the argument completely, it seems at least a reasonable idea to investigate that one good reason the U.S. has not yet faced an actually tyrannical government is that such a government would have to control a large landmass with an armed and cantankerous citizenry. While you may disagree, that's the answer ("Freedom for ourselves and others.") that those Americans in favor of the right to keep and bear arms would supply to your question of "what is it giving now?"
Cheers,
timothy
* That is, there are people still alive who can recall the oppression in each of these, even if they're not of my generation.
Hi there!
h p
I wonder which country you're referring to (with such stringent punishment for possessing a lethal weapon).
An interesting (but tangential) thought is the frequent conflation in government-run schools in the U.S. of "weapon" with "anything that can be used as a weapon." (Not that this is confined to schools, of course.)
I certainly wouldn't want to be sent to jail for 25 years for possessing a nail clipper on government property (or my own); see
http://www.nospank.net/n-e64.htm and
http://www.zerointelligence.net/archives/000654.p
timothy
"sgi" example is a good one of how an Emperor may choose to be clothed. I graduated from the University of Texas; while I was there, a (famous, large) advertising agency called GSD&M -- some of the founders of which were Texas alums -- took on as a pro bono work a massive "rebranding" campaign for the University, busily brainstorming and no doubt exchanging heated and eloquent memos, then rigorous focus-grouping, survey-taking, and all the rest.
What'd they come up with? What grand vision, what summary of the hopes, goals, and accomplishments of the University did these grand poobahs arrive at?
"We're Texas."
Yup -- as silly as it sounds. "We're Texas." I forget the ludicrous amount of money they claimed this service would have been worth if they hadn't donated it, but frankly, I'd rather they have donated that much money's worth of bull semen instead, because (within limits) that's a commodity that's resellable -- unlike the two-word cow-patty they actually supplied.
timothy
p.s. "We're Texas." Say it a few more times -- sorta slides right off the brain.
First, there are jerks, and there are nice people. They may not be especially evenly distributed, but both are widespread, and sometimes they exist in the same human bodies.
1) People like to have exclusive knowledge: how to wear clothes "correctly" (to whatever standard one cares about) isn't intuitive; hip nightclubs are only hip when they're on the cusp between unknown and widely known, so people can know that they know what other people know. Not *all* other people, that is -- just the ones who you want to know that they're either your social equals or social inferiors.
2) People vary in their ability to grasp particular bodies of knowledge or particular skills; some people (not me!) find long command-line incancations "natural" or at least "easy." Of that select group, some of them are friendly, pleasant, helpful and grasp that not everyone shares identical interests, skills or thus-far life experiences; others are flat out jerks to others.
3) People are curious and contentious; they like to be right on a given topic, and to engage in argument when they think someone else is wrong. That's why Slashdot exists.
3) Familiarity, group membership and certain knowledge are all psyschologically comforting, whether it's defined by in-group status or out-group status. Hence religion, and "religious" arguments over silly things. Regular Slashdot readers know that people (not all the *same* people, though many are trolls who'd be willing to hurt anyone handy, just for fun) are willing to say nasty things about Windows; about Linux; about GNOME / KDE / WindowMaker / Anything with a GUI; about particular text editors. Some of these arguments are lighthearted, some of them seem like the products of bad, angry childhood experiences.
4) I've seen arrogant, dismissive vitriol from Windows users, from Linux users, and from people with a broad, cross-platform interest in supreme jerkdom. My experience has been mostly good in seeking help from those in the free software world, and my personal experience with other than non-free software is usually lousy not because of fellow users, but because of annoying software. But that's because various preferences keep me from using much other than free software.
In fact, one reason (not the top or best one, but a real one) I don't like to use Windows is that I've seen from Windows users so much of the same arrogance and exclusion that people seem to be attributing here to Linux users. There's arrogance aplenty in the computer world like any other domain of life; some people's self-esteem hinges on making sure that others around them are kept down and aware of their inferiority. (Or, phrased more positively, people enjoy the in-jokes and belonging of being w/ similar fellows, which exludes others aside from malice.)
timmothy
"Also, it's strange that this article mentions Rockbox only in the context of iPods, considering that it was originally designed with Archos and iRiver players in mind, and has only been working on iPods for a couple months. Hence, many things which work nicely for other targets are still quite broken on iPod."
;) (With Archos players, that is.)
... beggars / choosers.
I wrote about putting it on a 4th-generation iPod only because that's what I had, and was pleased with the transformation. I know it's not quite to the level of Rockbox on some other players, but even in its current state I find it really useful. And, I did at least *mention* that it started out that way
"It does have a very active dev community (I can cvs update every 3 or 5 days and see a new major feature working) and is a lot of fun to tinker with, but as far as a 'better' replacement for the iPod firmware, I really wouldn't say it's quite there yet."
I do see some rough edges, but in the couple of days I've been using it, it strikes me as superior to Apple's firmware *for me.* Would be nice if recording worked, and greyscale video on the iPod screen would be neat, but
timothy
Well ... I like drag-and-drop management, and don't much like the iTunes interface. That's not slagging on the iTunes interface per se -- only in the way that it relates to my own brain / tastes, both of which are notoriously poor. (If I ever say "iTunes sucks!" I would mean that only for me personally, at least wrt aesthetics.) I have my own ideas of how to organize my audio tracks, and sometimes I'll drag a folder of assorted files (some audio, some text, some other) onto my iPod when using it as a hard drive; a nice thing about Rockbox is that I can then instantly access the audio tracks in there, whereas with the Apple firmware, they'd just be sitting there on the drive, until it was put in the iPod DB with iTunes / gtkPod / Amarok / etc.
Also, of course, iTunes doesn't yet run natively on Linux (I think it does using WINE, though I've not investigated that since I saw it demo'd a few years ago).
Tim
I guess they don't want to become a true non-profit org for some reason."
;)
Maybe not an official IRS-sanctified one. But I think they're a true non-profit, more so than they'd like. I promise to give them some money once I start *making* money again rather than spending it all on school
timothy
When I'm at the airport, I want to have the following T-shirt:
FRONT TEXT: I'm carrying a picture of myself.
BACK TEXT: Do you feel safer yet?
"Proper" ID (that is, rigorously checked, hard to fake, and accurate), for all of the good civil liberty arguments against it, might actually prevent certain types of crime. Them's the breaks.
Would it deter people who don't mind dying in order to obtain a religo-political goal? Well, it didn't deter the September 11 hijackers, at least not all of them.
The only way to travel free of possible terrorism is if everyone agrees to be schlepped around nude, drugged, and packed in Jello. Including the terrorists.
timothy
Hey, the Dept of Education (and several of the others, Labor and Energy being at the top of my list) certainly *ought* to go; Reagan didn't fulfull that promise well enough.
;) If you're in a Borders or similar bookstore, I think the relevant segment starts on page 177.
Speaking of small government and superflous departments -- check out the book The Undercover Economist, by Tim Harford; he makes some IMO quite funny jabs at the Cameroonian Department of Tourism, whose chief job seems to be discouraging tourism
timothy
Well, on the show, partly for FCC reasons and I'm sure partly because of the humor (which is partly based on getting around the FCC rules by pointing out their stupidity, etc etc), Penn says "Bulls Hit." Don't blame me for that! :)
timothy
It seemed silly to me at first, but now that I've seen it a few times, I actually like this Ambilight thing. Now, with the caveat that *I* am unqualified to do this, and am only making an idle observation, it seems that a PC with webcam (webnbcam pointed at your LCD panel TV) and an LED array behind the panel would make it a reasonable proposition to recreate this effect. (Software on the PC would analyze the image from the webcam to see what dominant color should be ordered up from the LED arrray ...
timothy
That naughty Penn has been referring repeatedly on-air (well ... for me, on downloaded MP3s) to Penn & Teller's Bulls Hit (pronounced as in "Male Bovines Strike"), but that's clearly a not-so-veiled way to get on air a common expletive, with a meaning more like "Male Bovines' Excretia."
And I'm sure that a) Penn's reaction would be funnier and smarter than typical toilet-humor shock-jocks (among whom I am not counting H. Stern, who clearly is not "typical," and has skewered the FCC chairman for his nanny-statism), and b) would bring more listeners to his show. That benefits me, because I like listening to it, and more listeners means greater chance of long-term survival.
So, please, FCC hear my plea -- stop that awful Penn Gillette from polluting our children's airwaves with his iconoclastic, caustic humor and dangerous insights!
timothy
Well, it's nice and warm in the time-warp bubble, I assure you.
;)).
Compared to the "future" media (music either downloaded for a fee, or on high-density CD-shaped media, or I suppose sold on flash media or other newfangledness), CDs are good IMO because the players are everywhere (new optical drives playing CD-shaped disks are all compatible, but old CD-ROM drives are out of luck playing Blue-Ray / HD-DVD / etc), and because they're *physical.* That has its drawbacks, but I'm glad that my CDs -- mostly in cold storage now -- are still around for me to rip anew if necessary. New recording techniques can be higher density of course, but most downloadable music (whatever its recording pedigree) is highly compressed; with CDs I can choose the compression level (at least up to the limits of the disk
Also, related to the ubiquity of the players, is that the disks' content are mostly amenable to no-loss conversion to other data carrier, and they have to be if they're going to play on any standard CD player. (Not to argue about Sony rootkits etc -- that's why I say 'mostly.')That's an issue I wish wasn't important, but there ya have it.
timothy
This story grabbed my eye in part because last week I bought CDs (well, a 3-CD set) for the first time in a year or two. "Walk the Line" made me curious about Johnny Cash, so I picked up for $17 this triple set of CDs with about 50 tracks from his years at Sun Records.
I like CDs. They're not perfect, but of the various media for recorded music that have been around during my lifetime, they're my favorite by a good margin.
1) If well treated, they're durable. Yes; LPs are, too, and for the true preservationist, perhaps more so. I'm not a preservationist, and like (I suspect) most people, my vinyl was never cleaned and has been subject to some unconscionable treatment. (I try to forgive myself, though.) I won't argue about the edge cases -- but I think for most people, given what I perceive to be typical storage and handling, CDs win on that count.
2) They don't unravel in a player like tapes can (and for me, have).
3) They're a decent size. Sure, a bit smaller with the same data capacity would be nice -- there are certainly some things I wish would fit on a CD uninterrupted that just won't fit there uncompressed, but it's longer than one side of a recorded / recordable cassette at least. But, now that CD players are so widespread, I'm happy enough with the length to accept it cheerfully. It's pretty easy to stuff a few CDs in a bag / briefcase / knapsack -- harder with LPs. (Yeah, I know -- I should be comparing to iPods, flash drives, etc. Except I'm not.)
4) They sound good, to my lead ears. Perfect? No; I've certainly encountered some badly mastered (or perhaps badly manufactured) CDs, but a well-recorded CD can sound great. My ears aren't the best, but I sense a lot of twaddle in some critiques of CDs' sound in which people seem to think they necessarily sound awful, or at best mediocre. That seems like quite a stretch! However, I don't want to fight with anyone who prefers wax cylinders, 256-bit-per-sample digital recordings played through a tube amplifier feeding convoluted-horn single-driver speakers, or anything else. But I'm sticking with "good" as a conservative description of typical CD sound.
5) Liner notes. Now *some* vinyl has great liner notes -- especially when they come with fold-out jackets etc. The size of an LP results in some really neat album cover art. But I'll take extensive liner notes (lyrics, little essays, whatever) over album art most days of the week.
timothy
... to yield "progressive" to mine enemies ;)
...)
However, I'm thinking of a new bumper sticker:
"Soak the rich -- they expand in water!"
I'm for taxes (to the extent that I can be for taxes) only to the degree that they're flat. Flat flat flat. No deductions, no loopholes. (However, I've yet to read some of the interesting other ideas out there wrt to variants on flat taxing
timothy
I dunno about the grandparent post, but *I* would have them ...
;)) but also a place to register preferences. Even though I always check No, because I think public-funded political campaigns are bad on every level I can think of, that little box asking me if I want to contribute to the matching funds program is my favorite part of the form. Why not also ask me if I want to support NASA, the NEA, the giant Agriculture Department bureaucracy, and quite a few other things? I might be a softie for NASA and certain others, but I don't like them being imposed on me.
- spend less, spend less, spend less, and
- use sales taxes *rather than* income taxes, or
- at least vastly simplify the tax structure.
- make the tax form a place to specify mandatory taxable income, Yes (until the amendment is repealed
I can hear two big objections lurching toward me:
1) "But we *vote* to make choices! We live in a Republic, not a pure democracy! Our elected officials like the NEA (et al), and this here social contract says that you have to pretend to like it, too, or else all of society devolves / state of nature / red in tooth and claw / anarchy / death."
To this, I say "Balderdash!" Sure, it's a Republic, and I'm glad. But the ballot box is only one of many ways that Democracy lets people's opinions be heard: that's why people write their Congressman, establish campaigns of persuasion, etc. And direct voting with dollars sounds like a good way to me for people to check arrogant government. Not perfect -- just good.
2) "If people could just willy nilly *choose* to pay or not pay for things, no one would pay, and the government would collapse."
I suppose there's that risk. But a) I'm actually for the moment only shouting for voluntariness for the programs that do not immediately preserve the safety / security (including financial) of the country and b) again, that problem of governmental arrogance. Technically, our government (in the U.S., but in any self-declared democracy) *is* us; seen that way, any move to cut taxes, or to minimize their impact for an individual, can be construed as "greed" and "anti-social." However, since the government in reality has its own agenda (or rather a whole passel of them -- "the gub'mint" is only a convenient abstraction for a mind-boggling collection of agencies, sub-agencies, departments and other divisions, and each of *those* has its own agendas and sub-agendas, too), and does not in reality act as a finely tuned detector of the Will of the People, I think reducing the scope of the items that the State can *demand* we pay is a good move. If no one wants to fund through their taxes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (or is it now for "Public Media"? Too lazy to check right now), I'm OK with that. If the reality is that most people *don't* want to pay for it, the flip side of the argument looks worse to me than the A-side ever looks good. "You don't like this, so I'm taking away your choice to reject it" should be reserved for the really important items, not just in the realm of taxation but in life generally. Coercion is bad.
My main complaints about Federal taxes are not just generalized griping that taxes are imposed in the first place (though I have objections to their magnitude), but rather a) that the system for calculating them is far too complex, and b) that much of the spending is badly aimed.
I would be willing to pay somewhat higher taxes than I do right now (though I surely would not prefer to), if I could get in exchange a system of taxation I considered fairer in its construction and administration. I am not sure (having gotten behind on my recreational reading on taxes) where this number comes from, but I've heard certain flat-taxers toss around the figure 17% as being a appropriate value -- I'm guessing (but it's not important right now) that this is according to certain calculations a good value for getting approximately the same revenue as the graduated income tax does now.
AC wrote: "What is this "bight" you speak of?"
m
...
...
Perhaps this?
http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/bowlineonabight.ht
After all, the government may attack us with teeth, but ropes (on necks) are more conventional, at least since the invention of the gallows
However, tax crimes nowadays don't generally involve a sentence of death. (Which, since the bowline on a bight slips easily, might make it the perfect knot for a symbolic hanging
timothy
This land-grab for providing public access for free by a private corporation is a travesty. Just think about all the people whose property those archives are -- what about *their* rights?
... Oh, yeah. Nevermind.
Waitaminute
timothy
"Hate" is a strong word.
There are people who want to "promote hatred" in the world, no doubt. The organizers of the KKK (especially present-day ones; the originals might get at least some product-of-their-times credit), recruiters for angry, retributionist separatists of any stripe, etc, qualify as intending to promote hatred. But that's a pretty harsh and specific charge, and not everyone will qualify (to our great benefit).
A lot of other people though, no matter how repugnant their views might be to you or me, have no interest in spreading emnity, even if you think their views are offensive, insenstive, chauvenistic, etc; not all negative opinions are *hatred* -- not even mocking or otherwise depracting opinions. Some rivalries are genuine but often friendly, and are the basis of a paradoxical bond based on a continuing series of mutual competition (Aussies / New Zealanders); some are primarily political -- or socio-political / social-religio-political / whatever (like Greek v. Cypriot student groups on U.S. campuses arguing the proper government of Cyprus), where opinions are strong, contentious and incompatible, but not necessarily resulting in the personal emotion of hatred; some are true, real-deal group HATRED. And of course, there are the various "pride" groups representing skin tones light or dark, some of which seem outward-directed ("we don't like *them*!") and some more inward-directed ("We like *us*!), and into which some people read hatred just in their existence, even if roundly denied.
It's especially hard to evaluate intent when all you've got to go on is something as ambiguous as an email address, chosen often on the spur of the moment and for reasons that could include memorability, humor (which might be obscure or contrarian), uniqueness (jsmith876548 is no fun), obscurity (so as to provide a useful gap between online and real-life names), which way the wind is blowing, etc.
Some email addresses might also be taken by other than the "side" that a glance might suggest, too -- in the same way that some web sites with names that sound like those of outwardly, frankly racist groups are instead parked by folks who'd rather sit on them or redirect to anti-racist sites instead.
Anyhow -- back to procrastinating!
timothy
Oddly enough ... a professor of mine (well -- talked at orientation, will probably later actually be one of my profs) gave this illustration as some sort of cornball illustration about "obviousness" (if I got the gist of it); basically, he filled a jar with large rocks, asked "Is the jar full?" Some students said Yes (which is true -- *in the sense that it was full of large rocks*); he proved 'em wrong by filling it with smaller rocks instead. Full? No, because there's still sand to go! (Though also true in the same sense as before -- "full of" requires a some standard of granularity; we're all just a little bit "full of it.") Full yet? No, because water is next! Finally full, to the audience's general satisfaction.
:)
..."
I wasn't sure what he was getting at; I pointed out that atoms (including those making up the molecules of water) are still mostly empty space. At this, he got a bit flustered, as if I'd shouted out the punchline to a joke he was still telling, but I wasn't trying to -- I figured that was the next Zen master step of his lesson about perceptions and truth
Oh, well. He just went on, with a snarky comment about "Ignoring Mr. Wizard back there
"To get a real breakthrough, you'd have to find a way to do without moving the sensor over the image. You can already image a piece of paper with a digital camera -- and some digital cameras are very tiny indeed. But they don't include the ability to correct the image for the arbitrary positioning of the camera. Invent that, and you'd have a handheld scanner worth talking about."
... perfect for photographing purloined letters.
;)
It's not perfect, but my camera -- a Casio EX-Z120 -- actually has exactly this feature built in. Casio calls it "Business Shot"; there are a few variants of this mode built in to the camera (though why it needs to be different for business cards vs. letter-size, I don't know). Upshot: If you take a shot, against a sufficiently contrasty background, of a basically rectangular item, such as a piece of paper with printing on it, the camera attempts to locate the edges and square things up. When I say "not perfect", I'm being kind -- it's easily confused, as a matter of fact, and I find this mode is actually more interesting for creating purposeful distortion than useful in its intended role; Ah, well. Also, this mode forces you down to 1600x1200 resolution -- which, if you're scanning a letter-size document for its content (rather than for the archives of an art museum or something), is probably not too harsh a limitation.
So -- the technology, though as yet in its early phases, is already out there, and will surely improve. Minox* should license that algorithm from Casio and start selling digital Minox cameras of the tiny shape favored by spies
timothy
*I just noticed a low-end Minox digicam the other day which looks very close in size to the EX-Z120, in fact, and also uses AA batteries. Maybe it's made in the same factory
a) Can't overload on resolution per se ;) I'd rather have a good 5MP sensor than a poor 7MP one, but holding quality constant (to the degree that can be done), I definitely want more resolution.
:) A foot or so greater distance, and that detail which IMO makes the shot much more interesting would have been a blur -- is she holding a shopping list there? In the best of all possible worlds, every shot would be perfectly composed to include the elements the photog wants, forever. *My* reality is that I've never thought "Boy, I'm glad *this* isn't higher res!" unless the picture happens to incude me.
a^) a bright, wide lens coupled with ultra-mega resolution has one advantage over a big telephoto, in that it's easier for a wide lens to be bright. There are some cameras with constant brightness (or nearly so) through their range, but the cameras I've ever owned are much darker extended. The wide / bright / hi-res combination has downsides, too -- long lenses allow effects wide ones don't, and don't distort edges in the same way.
b) Sure -- given druthers / realities, including that infinite resolution just isn't possible, a telephoto lens is good and important -- I'm glad I have one on my camera! Even when cameras have 30MP typical, I'm sure I'll still want some degree of zoom. But I know that lots of my photos end up with areas of detail that I wish I could zoom in on and in on; last night I was pleased to find that I could actually read the (incredibly sappy, adolescent) poetry in the hand of a girl whose photo I took several years ago with a 3.1MP Nikon Coolpix. In that case, it worked
timothy