"when everyone's individual interests are optimized by exploiting a common"
You've just described not just civilized/socialized ( as opposed to harmony-being/inclusive community, like the community-of-diverse-cells a real yogi is ), but have just described cancer, as well. The only differences between 'em are apparent, as far as I'm concerned, the fundamental determination of the mode shows its nature to be the same in actual consequences.
Re:How capitalism can indeed serve social interest
on
Reclaiming the Commons
·
· Score: 1
The foundation of Objectivism is ( in Ayn Rand's own words ): "Only the concrete is real." Note that -- it is an abstract object, that declares only concrete objects, not abstract ones, are/can-be real.
For any philosophy/religion to use, as proof/validation/foundation, an object that declares its kind of entity to be not valid, is ( let's be polite ) daft.
Capitalism is a religion, like any other, that holds its god/worth ( capital ) to be the primary god/worth.
It isn't possible to hold one reality to be primary, and hold some other worth/reality to be primary too ( same as one can't have 2 contradictory really-primary relationships: I geek/think, because I find that belonging-worth can't get me my own root meaning, and bogus relationship isn't fair, or effective ).
If economic position/action is one's god/heart-meaning, fine. If belonging-authority is one's god/heart-meaning, fine. If political believing is one's god/heart-meaning, fine. If reductionism/materialism and the Position acquired by practising reductionism on others/others'-reality is one's god/heart-meaning, fine. Don't lie about it ( to one's self or to reality ), though: falseness don't get valid results.
Any who go-on about family-values/human-worth while their action proves they value individual/group importance and economic importance and keeping/having privilege/position ( even if many others don't even have the basics, my privilege comes "before" their fundamental worth. . . ), and assumed authority. . . speak with actions more truly than with words. We ( our cultures ) train ourselves to grow these "values", and complain when we get consequences of our own committing-reality! Idiocy.
Anyone who honestly has warred with one's own unconscious ignorance won't be able to be surprised that this is reality, but even when one has warred for years to own one's essence/meaning, and still finds that unconscious ignorance owns one, it's still staggering ( the strength and overall life manipulatingness of unconscious ignorance is staggering -- it takes hugely intense, emotionally profound experience to get any new knowing into unconscious mind -- unconscious mind thinks drunk, and it's more fundamental than transient ego-mind, so it owns us. Read "Hypnosis for the Seriously Curious" to understand how fundamentally obtuse our deep-mind really is. )
Use the kata system: have student set up a honeypot, updated and "secure".
Nugatory its security/function in some way, giving them concrete experience, have 'em set it up again, secure. Nugatory it in some different way. They're warned that it's going to be defeated, yet the experience of having to discover when/what/where/how it was defeated creates vigilance-meaningfulness in their mind. Book-knowing cannot do this. Ever.
( back to the kata-system ) When they've got the hang of dealing with one compromise at a time, hit 'em with a multi-compromise script using some group of problems that will test ( but not panic/break ) 'em. Do it again, using different combos, mixing 'em up, designing the choice-of-attacks so that they get to deal with as fundamentally diverse a group of attacks as possible ( rather than 20 variations of a single motif )
Book-knowing and theory don't deeply convince, and cannot convince, in ways that change living-expression ( compared with concrete experience -- just compare someone who's "read about" grief with someone who's embedded in it: one knowing doesn't change one's Mind, the other deeply/really does ).
Something I realized awhile ago, is that exclusion-group can't work ( for governing ), simply because its foundation is obliteration of diversity, or obliteration of choice, or obliteration-of-potential, and its self-interest becomes our world-direction Guide ( http://www.extremeprogramming.org/lessons.html for part of what seems to be maximally-valid alternative awareness and process ).
However, if the exclusive-group-power is replaced with an inclusive scheme ( I mean scheme as in a software-system, not as in multi-level-marketing ), sort-of a bath-tub curve ( exclude only the harmful extremes, include as much of everything as reasonably possible ), and the stake-holders get to vote on the issues ( rather than having powerful/influential someones decide for us ), and abusers get "modded down" in-their-influence ( notice that: abusers, rather than differers ), that can work.
It's simply a different cognitive-system: instead of personal glory+privilege+predation ( and ignore the damage done to many ), or the leftist alternative group-belonging+group-authority+no-individual-resp onsibility ( and ignore the damage done to individual ) [ I hold that political motivation is, itself, fundamentally wrong-minded. . . mind you, I'm buddhist and am working on eradicating ignorance/ignosis from my-mind, so I care directly about unwrong-ing Mind, and am aware how received ignorance manupulates us into wrong-commitment. I want out. ], using impersonal system to cause the particular population to consider the issues, and work on the important/meaningful, getting important/meaningful result ( rather than the political ignorance/involvement-aggression we "want" ).
Any "answer" we put in Verisign/ICANN's place either will be made so it can work, or will be made so it won't ( rather than "can't" -- because of us ignoring human-nature and political gunk-nature etc. rather than because of any physics-level non-possiblity ).
This goes for all our governing entities and means ( whether state-corporation or privately-held corporation: no root-diff between 'em, just appearance+form difference ).
drop a drive onto a hard table from a couple of feet ( or hands ; ), and you'll probably exceed the 100G for an very short time ( check the instantaneous-shock specs sometimes seen ), but if it boshes the drives/etc., they're boshed, and you haven't got 'em now.
Also, thus-far, no-one's commented on the incredibly important item that * dis-similar metals, plus electrolyte -- which seawater is, == hideous corrosion * . Different metals in the fasteners and the chassis ( ferinstance ) and salt-moisture? don't ask. Different metals in the solder and the leads? Different metals in the wires and the connectors?
Someone I know's with (but not in, see) the military, and tells me that only brass/bronze/similar can deal with the corrosion: if it is iron-based ( even stainless, he says ), it's hosed.
I(thank buddha/god)AANAL(either) Copyright has several roots: -the Author has copyright on the work, -the Performer has copyright on the performance, and there are also rights associated with the compilation/mechanical-contrivance etc.
A recording of Weird Al playing an unadulterated version of The Beatles' 'Help' would be copyright infringement, just as would an unauthorized recording of the Beatles performing it.
If Mr Cage is claiming copyright on deliberately recorded silence, and the court upholds this claim, then that kind of silence is what is copyrighted, and it doesn't matter if one's own recorded silence was differently sourced than was Mr Cage's: If the court grants that Mr Cage is the author of 'deliberately recorded silence', that's that. Period. The court may put a limit on it, saying 'deliberate recordings of this duration +-30% are owned by Mr Cage', or whatever, but that is our law.
Isn't it great that we replace all those old human-monarchs with corporate-person-monarchs?
Now we have made our own lords who cannot be caused to experience mortal consequences for their rule!. . .
Instead of heaving a month-mosh worth of stuff at a student ( in order to make the student's process appear good on the committee-reports ), the John Saxon's Idea was to give us 1 simple concept at a time, so that we actually learn it, and to layer/syncopate the concepts so that progress is continuous.
3. it checks category-specific web-directories to render inaccessable everything listed in the web-dirs ( say, everything in the "Adult/Galleries" or whatever it is, section of Google/DMoz ), and notice that I said web-dirs, since several of 'em would give more complete coverage of the subject-area ( be it political or porn, not that there is any underlying diff ). Oh, yeah, it'd need to limit itself to the specific subdirectories that pertained ( the "Adult/Galleries" section of GoogleDir is likely to link back to the root Google Directory, as well as have Society/Personals as a sub-link section etc. and blocking all the web would be a bad thing, eh? )
4. Dance With Glee[tm] at having suppressed information's life without checking/verifying what we actually are doing ( it'd be better than the commercial versions, anyways )
- It'd probably have to be freeware ( non-commercial ) to be legal ( or the directories would be able to sue its creator for unlicensed commercial use of their products ), but if it were freeware/GPL, then it oughta work.
How come no-one uses in-place filtering? ( make the working-someones the owners of the company/unit, keep unit-size below the 144-person unit-limit we're wired with, and simply allow peer-pressure between the working-someones/owners to suppress lossy practices. . . )
Slashdot Mirror
"when everyone's individual interests are optimized by exploiting a common"
You've just described not just civilized/socialized ( as opposed to harmony-being/inclusive community, like the community-of-diverse-cells a real yogi is ), but have just described cancer, as well. The only differences between 'em are apparent, as far as I'm concerned, the fundamental determination of the mode shows its nature to be the same in actual consequences.The foundation of Objectivism is ( in Ayn Rand's own words ):
"Only the concrete is real."
Note that -- it is an abstract object, that declares only concrete objects, not abstract ones, are/can-be real.
For any philosophy/religion to use, as proof/validation/foundation, an object that declares its kind of entity to be not valid, is ( let's be polite ) daft.
Capitalism is a religion, like any other, that holds its god/worth ( capital ) to be the primary god/worth.
It isn't possible to hold one reality to be primary, and hold some other worth/reality to be primary too ( same as one can't have 2 contradictory really-primary relationships: I geek/think, because I find that belonging-worth can't get me my own root meaning, and bogus relationship isn't fair, or effective ).
If economic position/action is one's god/heart-meaning, fine. If belonging-authority is one's god/heart-meaning, fine. If political believing is one's god/heart-meaning, fine. If reductionism/materialism and the Position acquired by practising reductionism on others/others'-reality is one's god/heart-meaning, fine. Don't lie about it ( to one's self or to reality ), though: falseness don't get valid results.
Any who go-on about family-values/human-worth while their action proves they value individual/group importance and economic importance and keeping/having privilege/position ( even if many others don't even have the basics, my privilege comes "before" their fundamental worth. . . ), and assumed authority. . . speak with actions more truly than with words. We ( our cultures ) train ourselves to grow these "values", and complain when we get consequences of our own committing-reality! Idiocy.
Anyone who honestly has warred with one's own unconscious ignorance won't be able to be surprised that this is reality, but even when one has warred for years to own one's essence/meaning, and still finds that unconscious ignorance owns one, it's still staggering ( the strength and overall life manipulatingness of unconscious ignorance is staggering -- it takes hugely intense, emotionally profound experience to get any new knowing into unconscious mind -- unconscious mind thinks drunk, and it's more fundamental than transient ego-mind, so it owns us. Read "Hypnosis for the Seriously Curious" to understand how fundamentally obtuse our deep-mind really is. )
Use the kata system: have student set up a honeypot, updated and "secure".
Nugatory its security/function in some way, giving them concrete experience, have 'em set it up again, secure. Nugatory it in some different way. They're warned that it's going to be defeated, yet the experience of having to discover when/what/where/how it was defeated creates vigilance-meaningfulness in their mind. Book-knowing cannot do this. Ever.
( back to the kata-system ) When they've got the hang of dealing with one compromise at a time, hit 'em with a multi-compromise script using some group of problems that will test ( but not panic/break ) 'em. Do it again, using different combos, mixing 'em up, designing the choice-of-attacks so that they get to deal with as fundamentally diverse a group of attacks as possible ( rather than 20 variations of a single motif )
Book-knowing and theory don't deeply convince, and cannot convince, in ways that change living-expression ( compared with concrete experience -- just compare someone who's "read about" grief with someone who's embedded in it: one knowing doesn't change one's Mind, the other deeply/really does ).
It's actually a question of how to manage
- circumstancial-process
mixed with- civilized human-nature
.Something I realized awhile ago, is that exclusion-group can't work ( for governing ), simply because its foundation is obliteration of diversity, or obliteration of choice, or obliteration-of-potential, and its self-interest becomes our world-direction Guide ( http://www.extremeprogramming.org/lessons.html for part of what seems to be maximally-valid alternative awareness and process ).
However, if the exclusive-group-power is replaced with an inclusive scheme ( I mean scheme as in a software-system, not as in multi-level-marketing ), sort-of a bath-tub curve ( exclude only the harmful extremes, include as much of everything as reasonably possible ), and the stake-holders get to vote on the issues ( rather than having powerful/influential someones decide for us ), and abusers get "modded down" in-their-influence ( notice that: abusers, rather than differers ), that can work.
It's simply a different cognitive-system: instead of personal glory+privilege+predation ( and ignore the damage done to many ), or the leftist alternative group-belonging+group-authority+no-individual-resp onsibility ( and ignore the damage done to individual ) [ I hold that political motivation is, itself, fundamentally wrong-minded. . . mind you, I'm buddhist and am working on eradicating ignorance/ignosis from my-mind, so I care directly about unwrong-ing Mind, and am aware how received ignorance manupulates us into wrong-commitment. I want out. ], using impersonal system to cause the particular population to consider the issues, and work on the important/meaningful, getting important/meaningful result ( rather than the political ignorance/involvement-aggression we "want" ).
Any "answer" we put in Verisign/ICANN's place either will be made so it can work, or will be made so it won't ( rather than "can't" -- because of us ignoring human-nature and political gunk-nature etc. rather than because of any physics-level non-possiblity ).
This goes for all our governing entities and means ( whether state-corporation or privately-held corporation: no root-diff between 'em, just appearance+form difference ).
drop a drive onto a hard table from a couple of feet ( or hands ; ), and you'll probably exceed the 100G for an very short time ( check the instantaneous-shock specs sometimes seen ), but if it boshes the drives/etc., they're boshed, and you haven't got 'em now.
Also, thus-far, no-one's commented on the incredibly important item that * dis-similar metals, plus electrolyte -- which seawater is, == hideous corrosion * . Different metals in the fasteners and the chassis ( ferinstance ) and salt-moisture? don't ask. Different metals in the solder and the leads? Different metals in the wires and the connectors?
Someone I know's with (but not in, see) the military, and tells me that only brass/bronze/similar can deal with the corrosion: if it is iron-based ( even stainless, he says ), it's hosed.
Copyright has several roots:
-the Author has copyright on the work,
-the Performer has copyright on the performance,
and there are also rights associated with the compilation/mechanical-contrivance etc.
A recording of Weird Al playing an unadulterated version of The Beatles' 'Help' would be copyright infringement, just as would an unauthorized recording of the Beatles performing it.
If Mr Cage is claiming copyright on deliberately recorded silence, and the court upholds this claim, then that kind of silence is what is copyrighted, and it doesn't matter if one's own recorded silence was differently sourced than was Mr Cage's: If the court grants that Mr Cage is the author of 'deliberately recorded silence', that's that.
Period.
The court may put a limit on it, saying 'deliberate recordings of this duration +-30% are owned by Mr Cage', or whatever, but that is our law.
The Saxon Math Books
p
http://www.saxonpublishers.com/sitemap/index.js
Why are they the best?
Instead of heaving a month-mosh worth of stuff at a student ( in order to make the student's process appear good on the committee-reports ), the John Saxon's Idea was to give us 1 simple concept at a time, so that we actually learn it, and to layer/syncopate the concepts so that progress is continuous.
It works.
as-in
1. install software ( like DansGuardian
http://dansguardian.org/?page=whatisdg
only different
2. activate/run it
3. it checks category-specific web-directories to render inaccessable everything listed in the web-dirs ( say, everything in the "Adult/Galleries" or whatever it is, section of Google/DMoz ), and notice that I said web-dir s , since several of 'em would give more complete coverage of the subject-area ( be it political or porn, not that there is any underlying diff ). Oh, yeah, it'd need to limit itself to the specific subdirectories that pertained ( the "Adult/Galleries" section of GoogleDir is likely to link back to the root Google Directory, as well as have Society/Personals as a sub-link section etc. and blocking all the web would be a bad thing, eh? )
4. Dance With Glee[tm] at having suppressed information's life without checking/verifying what we actually are doing ( it'd be better than the commercial versions, anyways )
- It'd probably have to be freeware ( non-commercial ) to be legal ( or the directories would be able to sue its creator for unlicensed commercial use of their products ), but if it were freeware/GPL, then it oughta work.
How come no-one uses in-place filtering? ( make the working-someones the owners of the company/unit, keep unit-size below the 144-person unit-limit we're wired with, and simply allow peer-pressure between the working-someones/owners to suppress lossy practices. . . )
This is similar to the Japanese Keiretsu idea.