Actually destroying government is impractical, and there are some useful things that governments can do. A better idea would be to limit government responsibility and power to a few clearly delimited areas. You could even do this with successive layers of government, so that each layer down has a few more powers but a smaller geographical area of responsibility, minimizing the amount of damage it can do. The governments with the most power to affect their citizens would have the smallest constituencies.
That's a fair clarification. The obvious follow-up question is this: what's the relevance of the distributed development paradigm to the usability of Linux distributions? Nearly every major distribution is assembled by paid developers.
Here's an interesting question: does Solaris meet most users' needs? How about most of the needs of its users?
I suggest that if Linux distributions don't meet most users' needs, it's not due to Open Source licenses or to the "distributed volunteer" development methodology.
I don't think I would be quite so specific. The first category of cookie-cutter good guy is common in the so-called right-wing sub-genre, but it's also common in all kinds of bad fiction that crosses many genres. The second is similarly not very clear cut. Saying that in a morally relativistic story characters face inner moral struggle invites people to jump to the conclusion that inner moral struggle is unique to stories written from a morally relativistic perspective, which is certainly not true. If a character struggles to figure out the right thing to do, and succeeds, then I don't think the struggle is sufficient to place it outside the so-called right-wing sub-genre. Even if a character concludes that there is no right or wrong, it doesn't mean that the work can't exist in this right-wing category; maybe the character is a bad guy.
I used the words "so-called" because obviously the idea of absolute right and wrong is not unique to the so-called right-wing ideologies. But if a story concludes that moral relativism is absolutely true and correct, it's not written from a so-called right-wing point of view.
In my opinion, the stories that are part of the far-right-wing sub-genre of science fiction that I described in my earlier post are relatively easy to categorize. This excludes stories like _Ender's Game_.
I find it truly amazing that someone would admit in public to sneaking up on around 90 people and killing them with premeditation.
You shouldn't; enough people distinguish between killing during wartime vs killing during peacetime that you should be past "amazement" and well into "cynical" by now.
But, frankly, I think the guy must have been mentally disturbed and a psychopath in order to do what he did and then even talk about it in public.
He didn't brag about it, other people bragged about him doing it. That being said, it is true that psychology is an important factor when determining who makes an effective sniper. Many people don't have the ability to look somebody in the eye (through their scope) and shoot them dead. Excellent marksmanship alone is not enough.
Like many heroes, Carlos Hathcock didn't go around bragging about his exploits. He refused to be decorated after being severely injured while rescuing people from a burning vehicle. It's no surprise to me that the Marines venerate him to this day.
2. Application installation. This is a nasty one. The immediate answer is usually that the distros all have such a nice package system. Yeah, but what if software XY isn't in the package database?
I've solved this problem for myself by picking distros that have so much software that I'm practically guaranteed to find something that will work for whatever I want to do. Apt is wonderful. Sometimes I have to watch myself when I do an apt-cache search because so many interesting programs pop out that I've never heard of that I'm liable to get distracted from what I should be doing. Sometimes, when I need to find a program to do something, I amuse myself by saying "self, if I wrote a program to do this, I'd call it foo," and then do an "apt-cache show foo", and there it is. (Usually I try "man foo" first, though.)
I'm by no means some kind of leet sysadmin. My primary advantages are the ability to read documentation (one that is sadly lacking in many people) and an awareness of google, that magic place in cyberspace where so many answers are found. And self-confidence, I guess.
Instead, said post says that as such open source (at least as is practised today, but the problem may wel be inherently tied to it) is not a/the solution to the needs of most users.
Actually, said post claimed precisely that current implementations don't satisfy the needs of most users. Whether that's inherent to all conceivable implementations of open source software is another question. (Since license is orthogonal to development methodology, I'd argue that it's not inherent to open source, though it might be inherent to systems developed solely by hobbyists in their spare time, which happens to describe most small open source projects.)
Fixing the typical "damn, it doesn't run properly on this machine", "it doesn't compile for me", "why the !@#$%^&* hell is this machine eating my print jobs without actually printing them", etc. problem is by no means in the same league of difficulty as changing a spark plug, hanging a picture, or adding a room partition.
That's for sure. Have you tried changing a spark plug lately? I have, and after unscrewing half the engine (or so it seemed) without actually finding the spark plugs my nerves got to me and I had to stop (cars are expensive, and so is getting one to a mechanic if I break it.) And hanging a picture--you can't just hang it anywhere, depending on the technology you're using to hang it. You need certain nails, or screws, or glue or whatever, and the odds are that even if you do manage to hang it, your wife (or your mom) will want you move it a little bit to the side or something. And when she's satisfied, your buddy comes over and points out that despite your measuring the exact placement of each bolt hole twice with a level, it's noticeably crooked. And don't even get me started on adding a room partition. Unless it's freestanding and comes with assembly instructions in my native language, I'm calling a contractor.
Computer problems are easy to solve by comparison.
take the code developed by thousands of programmers over 15 years, make it proprietary, and contribute nothing back.
That is the most previlant excuse GPL supporters use.
An excuse for what? The goal of the GPL isn't to make sure that the original code remains with the original developers (copyright law already does that) or to try to get the original code integrated into as many different projects as possible (which is certainly desirable under some circumstances), the goal of the GPL is to increase the amount of code in the world that meets the FSF's definition of "moral".
It's perfectly valid to say "I don't prefer the GPL because I have different goals," but to say "that thing that GPL supporters say is their goal isn't really, it's just an excuse" requires more justification.
And the last point, in the end, companies contribute most of the code back into some sort of public view...
It's almost as if many companies aren't intimidated by GPL-like behavior.
(Other genres didn't seem to be written almost exclusively by far-right-wing types, either.)
I've been noticing more and more lately a distinct sub-genre of far-right-wing mid-tier science fiction. I consider myself to be pretty right-wing (though the political compass puts me near the origin), but some of these guys just make me want to throw my hands up in the air and laugh out loud, which is hard to do when reading without sending the book flying across the room (which would be bad, because then I would lose my place.)
Obviously, so-called right-wing themes have been a part of sci-fi for ever; many stories involve use of force by the good guys, which requires an ideology that doesn't frown upon use of force. Many stories *have* good guys, which is a so-called right-wing theme in itself (contrasting with moral relativism.) Lately, though, I've been noticing more of a blatant contrast between the "good" so-called right-wing ideas of the protagonists and "bad" so-called left-wing ideas espoused by other characters. Example: _Watch on the Rhine_, where those silly European leftists oppose a military buildup in the face of the bloodthirsty alien hordes who are coming to eat them. (Spoiler: many of them get eaten.) Even Card's preachiest books don't approach that level.
Be sure, though, that this is a sub-genre of science fiction. Many excellent authors (Banks, Stross, Bujold) do not write books that fit the above stereotype.
He is bad at just about everything he does except one thing... He is somehow charismatic with the rednecks and impoverished people of the "red states"... I don't understand how, for example, in Iowa (and another 'I' state I don't remember) there are LINES Hundreds of people long waiting to get food because they are so poor and there are no jobs that they can't afford to put food on the table. Yet theses states went "red" in both elections...
I just can't figure it out... It's like a HUGE portion of this country has lost the intellectual/logical side of it's collective brain...
Part of the reason for your confusion might be because of your apparent acceptance of the "red state / blue state" meme. If you look at a county-by-county vote, it becomes clear that there aren't red states and blue states, there are rural counties and urban counties. The rural counties mostly voted for Bush and the urban counties mostly voted for Kerry. So, just because a state has more red counties / voters / whatever doesn't mean that nobody in that state opposes Bush. If only rich people vote for Bush and only poor people vote for Kerry, then maybe it just so happens that those states have more rich people than poor people (at least in their own eyes.) Maybe the hundreds of people in line for handouts are all Kerry supporters.
Another explanation could be your apparent acceptance of the idea that people vote for the candidate that they feel will benefit them the most personally, as opposed to the candidate that they feel will benefit the country the most. While it's clear that many people do vote that way (hence the existence of pork), not everyone does.
Maybe the stiff-necked conservatives in line for handouts in red states look down on charity and feel deeply ashamed that their circumstances force them to accept it. That could explain why they would vote for the candidate of a party not traditionally associated with charity for individuals. Maybe what they would prefer is charity for businesses, so that they can go out and get jobs or something. (Or maybe they're ordinary people who simply liked the Republican tv commercials better.)
I read and liked A. Toynbee but I just can't see that an idea such as you've suggested could ever be substatiated or refuted.
It seems like observation of past civilizations would be a good place to start. But, I'd first want to see a more formal statement of exactly what the idea in question is. A formal hypothesis could be refuted by finding a counterexample. As far as substantiating it goes, the best we can hope for is to have a hypothesis that fits all of the known facts.
I'm tired of having to put up with all that crap because people can't parent their kids.
I think laws of this type are an attempt by misguided but well-meaning people who agree with your sentiment. They're tired of having to put up with other people raising kids "wrong", so they're going to try to force those parents to raise kids "right" via the law.
To them, good parents don't let their kids play violent video games, so when a parent does let their kid play a violent video game, they're a bad parent, and somebody should pass a law or something to help that poor child.
They don't understand how much censorship and ineffectual band-aid solutions hurt society.
When you're too old to know what it is to be young, it seems, you'll inevitably subscribe to an orthodoxy that sees children as wild and at risk of being irrevocably corrupted.
Or, perhaps the rise and fall of civilizations is a cyclic process, and not a one-way increase that began some time in the prehistoric past and will end with the death of the last civilization.
If I catch you subverting my network security, I will come into your bedroom while you are sleeping, step on your neck and fire two bullets into the back of your head.
Your response sounds like an overreaction to me. When I read statements like yours, I feel warm fuzzy thoughts about living in a state that has the death penalty. Sure, shoot me in the head when I'm sleeping. My next of kin will get the last laugh.
Do you have a cite for this, or is it just based on "common sense"? It seems reasonable if the bus uses some fancy technology (like a flywheel, or an electric engine), but I've heard the claim that regular gas or diesel buses actually give worse mileage per person in city traffic than cars, due to the frequent starting and stopping.
I'd like to see some reputable numbers either way before simply assuming that a bus has better (or worse) mileage per person than a car.
If you'd said a bus is cheaper to the rider, that's a lot easier to believe. My commute costs me $2 in gas each way, 4 times a week. I wish public transportation was available. Or at least, someone I could carpool with.
Whether or not Fox News is actually a fair and balanced news source is another discussion entirely. (A very short one.)
If Prendergast's article is what convinced someone that Fox News is not the epitome of journalistic integrity, I guess that's ok, but they're a little late to the party. The MSM (of which Fox News is an enthusiastic member) does far worse.
While I agree with your sentiment, the article in question is clearly marked as an opinion piece, not news. It would have been better for them to say up front that the writer is a Microsoft shill, but you've got to expect biased articles in the opinion section. That's what it's for.
There are better reasons to criticize Fox News, I think.
I'd pay $200 for a laptop if it meant that another one went to someone who could not afford it.
I think a lot of people would. This could be a good fundraising technique, especially if the machine is well-designed enough for grandma to use for email.
And the engineer asking the customer to run a diagnostic, wtf? Get your fanny in there and nail down the problem, don't ask the customer to do your support.
This is pretty common when a vendor doesn't offer on-site support (or when a customer doesn't purchase it.) The simple fact that the customer was talking with an engineer (as opposed to a phone droid) is a sign that the vendor took it seriously. If running a diagnostic can give the engineer enough information to attempt to reproduce the problem in his lab, then it doesn't make sense for the engineer to fly to the customer's location, run the command, then fly back to the lab and do what he needs to do to chase down the problem. Asking the customer to run the command can actually result in better support, and a quicker fix.
That was a worthwhile comment. Selling FOSS (possibly after rebranding, and usually along with a support contract) to businesses who want to pay money for their software is surprisingly viable. For example, Sun sells Staroffice, even though you can just go and download openoffice for free if you want to. Red Hat sells its Enterprise Server software, even though their customers could just download CentOS, White Box Linux, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually destroying government is impractical, and there are some useful things that governments can do. A better idea would be to limit government responsibility and power to a few clearly delimited areas. You could even do this with successive layers of government, so that each layer down has a few more powers but a smaller geographical area of responsibility, minimizing the amount of damage it can do. The governments with the most power to affect their citizens would have the smallest constituencies.
Here's an interesting question: does Solaris meet most users' needs? How about most of the needs of its users?
I suggest that if Linux distributions don't meet most users' needs, it's not due to Open Source licenses or to the "distributed volunteer" development methodology.
I used the words "so-called" because obviously the idea of absolute right and wrong is not unique to the so-called right-wing ideologies. But if a story concludes that moral relativism is absolutely true and correct, it's not written from a so-called right-wing point of view.
In my opinion, the stories that are part of the far-right-wing sub-genre of science fiction that I described in my earlier post are relatively easy to categorize. This excludes stories like _Ender's Game_.
You shouldn't; enough people distinguish between killing during wartime vs killing during peacetime that you should be past "amazement" and well into "cynical" by now.
He didn't brag about it, other people bragged about him doing it. That being said, it is true that psychology is an important factor when determining who makes an effective sniper. Many people don't have the ability to look somebody in the eye (through their scope) and shoot them dead. Excellent marksmanship alone is not enough.
Like many heroes, Carlos Hathcock didn't go around bragging about his exploits. He refused to be decorated after being severely injured while rescuing people from a burning vehicle. It's no surprise to me that the Marines venerate him to this day.
I've solved this problem for myself by picking distros that have so much software that I'm practically guaranteed to find something that will work for whatever I want to do. Apt is wonderful. Sometimes I have to watch myself when I do an apt-cache search because so many interesting programs pop out that I've never heard of that I'm liable to get distracted from what I should be doing. Sometimes, when I need to find a program to do something, I amuse myself by saying "self, if I wrote a program to do this, I'd call it foo," and then do an "apt-cache show foo", and there it is. (Usually I try "man foo" first, though.)
I'm by no means some kind of leet sysadmin. My primary advantages are the ability to read documentation (one that is sadly lacking in many people) and an awareness of google, that magic place in cyberspace where so many answers are found. And self-confidence, I guess.
Actually, said post claimed precisely that current implementations don't satisfy the needs of most users. Whether that's inherent to all conceivable implementations of open source software is another question. (Since license is orthogonal to development methodology, I'd argue that it's not inherent to open source, though it might be inherent to systems developed solely by hobbyists in their spare time, which happens to describe most small open source projects.)
That's for sure. Have you tried changing a spark plug lately? I have, and after unscrewing half the engine (or so it seemed) without actually finding the spark plugs my nerves got to me and I had to stop (cars are expensive, and so is getting one to a mechanic if I break it.) And hanging a picture--you can't just hang it anywhere, depending on the technology you're using to hang it. You need certain nails, or screws, or glue or whatever, and the odds are that even if you do manage to hang it, your wife (or your mom) will want you move it a little bit to the side or something. And when she's satisfied, your buddy comes over and points out that despite your measuring the exact placement of each bolt hole twice with a level, it's noticeably crooked. And don't even get me started on adding a room partition. Unless it's freestanding and comes with assembly instructions in my native language, I'm calling a contractor.
Computer problems are easy to solve by comparison.
An excuse for what? The goal of the GPL isn't to make sure that the original code remains with the original developers (copyright law already does that) or to try to get the original code integrated into as many different projects as possible (which is certainly desirable under some circumstances), the goal of the GPL is to increase the amount of code in the world that meets the FSF's definition of "moral".
It's perfectly valid to say "I don't prefer the GPL because I have different goals," but to say "that thing that GPL supporters say is their goal isn't really, it's just an excuse" requires more justification.
It's almost as if many companies aren't intimidated by GPL-like behavior.
You make cowardice sound much less bad. Usually it's considered to be a negative thing.
Perhaps they simply agreed with his platform.
I've been noticing more and more lately a distinct sub-genre of far-right-wing mid-tier science fiction. I consider myself to be pretty right-wing (though the political compass puts me near the origin), but some of these guys just make me want to throw my hands up in the air and laugh out loud, which is hard to do when reading without sending the book flying across the room (which would be bad, because then I would lose my place.)
Obviously, so-called right-wing themes have been a part of sci-fi for ever; many stories involve use of force by the good guys, which requires an ideology that doesn't frown upon use of force. Many stories *have* good guys, which is a so-called right-wing theme in itself (contrasting with moral relativism.) Lately, though, I've been noticing more of a blatant contrast between the "good" so-called right-wing ideas of the protagonists and "bad" so-called left-wing ideas espoused by other characters. Example: _Watch on the Rhine_, where those silly European leftists oppose a military buildup in the face of the bloodthirsty alien hordes who are coming to eat them. (Spoiler: many of them get eaten.) Even Card's preachiest books don't approach that level.
Be sure, though, that this is a sub-genre of science fiction. Many excellent authors (Banks, Stross, Bujold) do not write books that fit the above stereotype.
Part of the reason for your confusion might be because of your apparent acceptance of the "red state / blue state" meme. If you look at a county-by-county vote, it becomes clear that there aren't red states and blue states, there are rural counties and urban counties. The rural counties mostly voted for Bush and the urban counties mostly voted for Kerry. So, just because a state has more red counties / voters / whatever doesn't mean that nobody in that state opposes Bush. If only rich people vote for Bush and only poor people vote for Kerry, then maybe it just so happens that those states have more rich people than poor people (at least in their own eyes.) Maybe the hundreds of people in line for handouts are all Kerry supporters.
Another explanation could be your apparent acceptance of the idea that people vote for the candidate that they feel will benefit them the most personally, as opposed to the candidate that they feel will benefit the country the most. While it's clear that many people do vote that way (hence the existence of pork), not everyone does.
Maybe the stiff-necked conservatives in line for handouts in red states look down on charity and feel deeply ashamed that their circumstances force them to accept it. That could explain why they would vote for the candidate of a party not traditionally associated with charity for individuals. Maybe what they would prefer is charity for businesses, so that they can go out and get jobs or something. (Or maybe they're ordinary people who simply liked the Republican tv commercials better.)
If the X-Ray were sufficient, they wouldn't need the bomb-sniffing device.
Methinks none of those folks are Python fans.
It seems like observation of past civilizations would be a good place to start. But, I'd first want to see a more formal statement of exactly what the idea in question is. A formal hypothesis could be refuted by finding a counterexample. As far as substantiating it goes, the best we can hope for is to have a hypothesis that fits all of the known facts.
I think laws of this type are an attempt by misguided but well-meaning people who agree with your sentiment. They're tired of having to put up with other people raising kids "wrong", so they're going to try to force those parents to raise kids "right" via the law.
To them, good parents don't let their kids play violent video games, so when a parent does let their kid play a violent video game, they're a bad parent, and somebody should pass a law or something to help that poor child.
They don't understand how much censorship and ineffectual band-aid solutions hurt society.
Or, perhaps the rise and fall of civilizations is a cyclic process, and not a one-way increase that began some time in the prehistoric past and will end with the death of the last civilization.
Because it's less work and hits more eyeballs?
Are both of you saying the opposite of what you mean? Why?
Your response sounds like an overreaction to me. When I read statements like yours, I feel warm fuzzy thoughts about living in a state that has the death penalty. Sure, shoot me in the head when I'm sleeping. My next of kin will get the last laugh.
Do you have a cite for this, or is it just based on "common sense"? It seems reasonable if the bus uses some fancy technology (like a flywheel, or an electric engine), but I've heard the claim that regular gas or diesel buses actually give worse mileage per person in city traffic than cars, due to the frequent starting and stopping.
I'd like to see some reputable numbers either way before simply assuming that a bus has better (or worse) mileage per person than a car.
If you'd said a bus is cheaper to the rider, that's a lot easier to believe. My commute costs me $2 in gas each way, 4 times a week. I wish public transportation was available. Or at least, someone I could carpool with.
If Prendergast's article is what convinced someone that Fox News is not the epitome of journalistic integrity, I guess that's ok, but they're a little late to the party. The MSM (of which Fox News is an enthusiastic member) does far worse.
There are better reasons to criticize Fox News, I think.
I think a lot of people would. This could be a good fundraising technique, especially if the machine is well-designed enough for grandma to use for email.
This is pretty common when a vendor doesn't offer on-site support (or when a customer doesn't purchase it.) The simple fact that the customer was talking with an engineer (as opposed to a phone droid) is a sign that the vendor took it seriously. If running a diagnostic can give the engineer enough information to attempt to reproduce the problem in his lab, then it doesn't make sense for the engineer to fly to the customer's location, run the command, then fly back to the lab and do what he needs to do to chase down the problem. Asking the customer to run the command can actually result in better support, and a quicker fix.
That was a worthwhile comment. Selling FOSS (possibly after rebranding, and usually along with a support contract) to businesses who want to pay money for their software is surprisingly viable. For example, Sun sells Staroffice, even though you can just go and download openoffice for free if you want to. Red Hat sells its Enterprise Server software, even though their customers could just download CentOS, White Box Linux, etc.