i am asking for logic and reason, that is all. love the usa, hate the usa, be my guest, its all good by me. why do you have to smear people without justification? what do you think you gain?
team c takes algorithm improvement b and makes algorithm improvement b(+d)
team e takes algorithm improvement b(+d) and makes algorithm improvement b(+d)->f
the guy who squeaked out the extra 0.01% did that on top of someone else's code that eked out 0.05%, etc., ad nauseum
so how do you ascertain who won? all the teams won
they should take the final prize money and try to fractionate each incremental improvement in the algorithm and proportionally dole out the money that aways. anything else is unfair
all you are arguing for is an artificial inflation of costs
the guy working from india also has 1/10th the cost of living of the mcmansion living $1/gallon hummer driving american, so of course he can underbid you
why do you think it is your right and privilege to cost so much more than you are rightfully worth?
protectionism doesn't help anyone, it just slows down progress
and this is speaking as a programmer living in the usa
if someone can do in manila my job for 1/5th the price, i don't understand how i can justify my rate anymore. how can you?
"They're not trying to reign down destruction on our heads because of our decadent Western ways"
no, that is exactly what they say, and what they desire to do. read their rants: the west is immoral and evil because it is nonislamic, and so it needs to be destroyed. al qaeda is an offensive organization, not a defensive one. it is pointed as much at christian and jewish communities in the middle east that have been there longer than islam itself as it is at the west. it is pointed at muslims not suitably pious enough in their eyes (not wearing a beard, women going to school, etc.). it is pointed at shiites, because simply being a shia is evil. it is also pointed at all foreign influences, from the most benign and well-meaning (un missions, charity workers, tourists, etc.) to the outright imperialistic (britain, usa, etc.)
and you wish to say what they do is simply fight imperialism. this is a tiny part of their motivation. their real motivation is simple xenophobia and intolerance: god gives you the right to kill anyone who is not a pious sunni. if imperialism never existed in the world, if the europeans, ottomans, americans, etc., never sent a single troop into the middle east, they would still be perfectly valid targets for murdering, since they aren't pious shiites. al qaeda is an offensive militant expansive organization. you look at imperialism and see a violent intrusive unjustifiable force into foreign cultures: that's exactly what al qaeda is!
"I was just trying to point out that in this situation, as in so many other things, there's no clearly defined good or evil."
there is no better definition on this planet than something like al qaeda. can you define evil in a better way than an organization which feels perfectly justified in killing thousands of innocents for religious reasons? don't take my word for it, take the word of any moderate muslim. the biggest victims of al qaeda are fellow muslims, because they are not pure enough
yes, the usa gave bin laden stinger missiles to fight the soviets in the 1980s
in what fantasy world does that mean the usa is responsible for anything bin laden does... even in the 1980s?
here's my wacky perception of the world: what bin laden does is the responsibility of bin laden
if i gave you a gun, and you take that gun and you shoot your girlfriend, am i now responsible for you shooting your girlfriend?
or to make the analogy even wackier: i gave you a gun in 1980. in 2001, you use that gun to shoot your girlfriend. so i'm responsible? that's exactly how you wish to portray how things work with who is responsible for what al qaeda does
you're entire perception of how accountability and responsibility works in the real world is completely... retarded
most people learn in kindergarten an essential tool that is basically the source of all morality in the world: the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. this allows you to understand motivations and properly assign blame: sometimes your fault, sometimes there's
but for a significant percentage of individuals in any population at all times are those who never develop any sort of understanding of other people other than "its someone else's fault". its statistically inevitable, really, its simple a degenerate state of mind... there is no prerequisite for some minds to degenerate now and then, it happens automatically on a low grade level at all times. if two kindergarteners fight over a toy, most begin to understand cooperation and why we need to share. for a statistically inevitable few however, its always their toy, and all you have to do is fight harder for it, and there is no legitimacy in the idea anyone else should have anything except you. this carries on the rest of their lives. they cover it up, but the idea of cooperation and the moral lessons that spring from that never are revealed to them
such degenerate minds are often mired and hampered in life in dysfunctional interpersonal relationships that fail to be productive, simply because of their failed way of thinking about their relationship to the world. but for those who few figure out how to blame "the other", as in, the other tribe, the other nation, the other religion, the other ethnicity, etc.: these people actually win political and social influence and importance, simply because many people succumb to this way of thinking, even those who understand in interpersonal relationships, at least, why other people are not always to blame, and why they must shoulder responsibility themselves, but simple xenophobia limits their ability to apply that outside their family, their town, their region, etc.
require no qualifications, historical explanations, or excuses. ethnocentrism, tribalism, and nationalism are the fault of no one except the people exhibiting these traits. they spring spontaneously forth in any society or culture: nothing is required for these evils to exist except essential human selfishness and blindness towards anyone else
ethnocentrism, tribalism and nationalism are not byproducts of some sort of evil. ethnocentrism, tribalism and nationalism are the original sin, the original evil from which all the tyrants, al qaedas, and the like spring into existence. of course political organizations manipulate and use these ancient evils, but ethnocentrism, tribalism and nationalism are not created by vile political agendas, they precede them. ethnocentrism tribalism and nationalism creates the vile political agendas of the world, not the other way around
we have to learn from history, not be trapped by history. history should teach you, not lock you in mindless recrimination
you are using the same idiotic logic that keeps the balkans buried in blood feuds going back for millenia. no, that does not work for explaining or condoning human behavior
the only way you assign accountability and responsibility is: if you do it, you're responsible. if your hands pulled a trigger that killed someone, who is responsible? you are. beginning and ending of responsibility. any other variation on that line of thinking is just "the devil made me do it": fabricated bullshit in an attempt to shift responsibility to vague hot button topics
you frame it as if al qaeda is a defensive organization, that somebody, the west, went in and stirred up trouble, implying that al qaeda is the fault of the west
al qaeda is an ethnocentric fundamentalist initiative, created by the middle east. you cannot possible hold the west responsible for chinese ultranationalism or russian ultranationalism. so why you would hold it responsible for arabic ethnocetrism?
this logic is broken: "the west did {xyz} bad thing in the middle east. therefore, every single bad person from the middle east is the respnsibility of the west"
here's a similarity: "al qaeda bombed the world trade center. therefore, george bush and dick cheney are the fault of al qaeda" this is of course bullshit. but its the same reasoning you use to attribute accountability and responsibility for the existence of al qaeda. al qaeda is a creation of the cultures of the middle east. period
just as soon as all of the "great thinkers" in this thread (riaa... really? torture? totalitarianism? do you know what these words actually mean?) figure out a way to trace terrorist funding WITHOUT this kind of snooping
oh right, terrorist funding doesn't exist, its a myth. its made up by neocons for mind control
algae-based fuels MUST work, and MUST achieve greater efficiency
or we must learn to master fusion
but fission won't last forever, and fossil fuels won't last forever, and currently all renewable sources (including algae) are tiny boutique niche sources that won't satisfy our huge energy demands
civilization will go into decline unless we master alternative energy sources. civilization already funds the enemies of civilization in order to dig on their land (wahhabi islam is an obscenity... to hell with your moral relativism, reactionary fundamentalism of any religion is pure evil, but wahhabi islam is example #1 of this kind of evil)
so don't criticize, and don't joke. this is very serious. we must get this right. if these joule guys are snake oil salesman, then fine, to hell with them
but this entire subject matter is very serious. in the next 200 years, we will either master an alternative enery source, or in 800 years, after the next middle ages to come, there will be archeologists writing doctoral theses about why this age of man failed
and this story is about why we would fail: the inability to master cheap alternatives
to hell with killer asteroids, nanotech gone amok, atomic bombs in iran, or other speculative modern bogeymen. lack of cheap energy won't possibly do us in... on our current track, lack of cheap energy WILL do us in
new technologies change societies. the wheel, the sail, the arrow, the printing press, the gun, the locomotive, the radio, the a-bomb... each sets in motion dramatic changes in how societies are organized and the rules of that society, written and unwritten. basic human truths don't change, but how they are interpreted DO change. established orders are upset and are shuffled
and now the internet is dramatically changing how we view "intellectual property". the entire set of laws concerning intellectual property are completely defunct. the internet has made them defunct. publishers are not a gentleman's club of a few powerful industrialists anymore, but any teenager with a cable connection. there is no way the rules that bound the gentleman's club can bind a billion teenagers. enforcing existing intellectual property rules is a joke. its not some sort of amazing revolution to fight those archaic intellectual property rules, its more that it takes farcical effort to continue abiding by them
the notion that people deserve something for creating a work never changes. but what they actually deserve and how that recognition is attributed DOES change. those who cling to the past think the debate is about giving content creators nothing. those who understand the future know its just about changing how attribution and respect will come to content creators tomorrow. no one thinks it is about ripping off content creators, that's just an unbridled fear
distributors, of course, are completely doomed. the internet has simply replaced them as much more efficient and cheaper. distributors must evolve into glorified talent agents, shadows of their former selves, or succumb to inevitable extinction. no one weeps for the chimney sweep or the horseshoe blacksmith, and so no one should shed a tear for nature, bertelsmann, etc.
you can google for it, i think you'll find research
but i remember watching a special on abc, i think, many years back, where they had two guys behind a one way mirror and they picked random women out of a shopping mall, and made up stories about the men:
guy #1: owned 3 cars (all high end models), millionaire, devotes extra time to charity and orphans, etc. the perfect guy... and short
guy #2: still lived with parents, had problem keeping a job or waking up in the morning, had run-ins with the law, etc. a horrible guy... and tall
they kept changing up the guy's stories like this, to all sorts of extremes of character, and the random women kept picking the tall guy as a better choice of mate
showing that the usual women's complaint of men being shallow for relying so much on physicality rather than character when choosing a mate is a completely bullshit complaint on the part of women. because women are just as shallow as men when it comes to physicality, except instead of ass size/ breast size/ waist size, women go for height
to work fewer days of longer hours, emphasis on evening hours when no one else is around in the office, for exactly the reasons mentioned in the article
at the very least, thank you very much for the article slashdot/ graham, it has great propaganda value and was just forwarded to my boss 1 minute ago as a follow up petition
you could say this is a function of a better diet (but you can also say women getting more "beautiful" is a function of a better diet as well)
so while men are selecting and refining the secondary sexual characteristics they like in women constantly, as reflected in offspring, women are doing the same right back at men
women are constantly haranguing men for being so focused on shallow physical aspects of a woman rather than her character, but women are in fact just as shallow as men: they always choose the taller men, and excuse character shortcomings if the guy is tall
so men are in fact getting taller and taller, and therefore the species as well, but you see it in the height dimorphism between the sexes. height-linked genes on the y chromosome are under as much evolutionary pressure as "beauty" genes on the x chromosome in women, via sexual selection way more than natural selection
and you can see this sexual selection in its debilitating effects on health. women have a high rate of breast cancer, no doubt because there is evolutionary pressure to inflate those things regardless of potential negatives of unbridled cell growth. and men have a high rate of heart attacks, which is of course linked to all sorts of bad health issues, but height counts in this higher rate (studies have shown a significant connection between height and a higher rate of heart attacks)
extrapolating to the scifi future, men will need the evolutionary adapations of giraffes in order to maintain the physicial characteristics pleasing to the female eye, and women will evolve bright red asses/ breasts like female baboons, perhaps...
FWIW, it took evolution millions of years to come up with a wheel. this is a very efficient way of moving intelligent beings with use of biomagnetics (repulse + attract) around a solid water crust with a nitrogen atmosphere. I'm not so sure this is a "one in hundreds" of potentially useful evolutionary ideas, but rather one in very few. That it's trilaterally symmetric comes from cellular agglomeration, and there is so far little supporting evidence that alternative mechanisms can support a three meter tall intelligent organism well
the russians are motivated by loss of profits and loss of snooping ability
and you wish to frame this as an open source/ closed source argument
make believe that skype were 100% open sourced (in fact, there are such open source skype-like products out there). you honestly want to represent that the russian attitude would be any different towards open source software?
the exchange's computers receives orders on a nice lazy interval, say every ten seconds. it may receive a bunch of orders at various milliseconds, but it simply queues them, then releases them at the ten second mark, all with the same timestamp
this removes the unfair manipulations of large players with lots of server iron at the expense of small traders
because surely this sort of fast trading is unegalitarian and against the notion of a free market
i have to defend the obvious wrongness of these fast trades, since it seems some people in this comment thread actually consider this bullshit fair, probably because they're involved and have sold their conscience
you know, the same sort of assholes who bought us million dollar mortgages for waitresses
who cares if you're damaging the marketplace and the economy, right? as long as you're fucking cashing in, right?
Slashdot Mirror
could you please substantiate your smear of me?
i am asking for logic and reason, that is all. love the usa, hate the usa, be my guest, its all good by me. why do you have to smear people without justification? what do you think you gain?
team a makes algorithm improvement b
team c takes algorithm improvement b and makes algorithm improvement b(+d)
team e takes algorithm improvement b(+d) and makes algorithm improvement b(+d)->f
the guy who squeaked out the extra 0.01% did that on top of someone else's code that eked out 0.05%, etc., ad nauseum
so how do you ascertain who won? all the teams won
they should take the final prize money and try to fractionate each incremental improvement in the algorithm and proportionally dole out the money that aways. anything else is unfair
all you are arguing for is an artificial inflation of costs
the guy working from india also has 1/10th the cost of living of the mcmansion living $1/gallon hummer driving american, so of course he can underbid you
why do you think it is your right and privilege to cost so much more than you are rightfully worth?
protectionism doesn't help anyone, it just slows down progress
and this is speaking as a programmer living in the usa
if someone can do in manila my job for 1/5th the price, i don't understand how i can justify my rate anymore. how can you?
your question is nonsensical because it has nothing to with what you said before
iran supplies hamas
ok, fine
now, 20 years later, hamas bombs iran
according to your logic, iran is responsible for hamas bombing iran. why? because iran supplied hamas 20 years before
do you see the error in your thinking yet?
"They're not trying to reign down destruction on our heads because of our decadent Western ways"
no, that is exactly what they say, and what they desire to do. read their rants: the west is immoral and evil because it is nonislamic, and so it needs to be destroyed. al qaeda is an offensive organization, not a defensive one. it is pointed as much at christian and jewish communities in the middle east that have been there longer than islam itself as it is at the west. it is pointed at muslims not suitably pious enough in their eyes (not wearing a beard, women going to school, etc.). it is pointed at shiites, because simply being a shia is evil. it is also pointed at all foreign influences, from the most benign and well-meaning (un missions, charity workers, tourists, etc.) to the outright imperialistic (britain, usa, etc.)
and you wish to say what they do is simply fight imperialism. this is a tiny part of their motivation. their real motivation is simple xenophobia and intolerance: god gives you the right to kill anyone who is not a pious sunni. if imperialism never existed in the world, if the europeans, ottomans, americans, etc., never sent a single troop into the middle east, they would still be perfectly valid targets for murdering, since they aren't pious shiites. al qaeda is an offensive militant expansive organization. you look at imperialism and see a violent intrusive unjustifiable force into foreign cultures: that's exactly what al qaeda is!
"I was just trying to point out that in this situation, as in so many other things, there's no clearly defined good or evil."
there is no better definition on this planet than something like al qaeda. can you define evil in a better way than an organization which feels perfectly justified in killing thousands of innocents for religious reasons? don't take my word for it, take the word of any moderate muslim. the biggest victims of al qaeda are fellow muslims, because they are not pure enough
yes, the usa gave bin laden stinger missiles to fight the soviets in the 1980s
in what fantasy world does that mean the usa is responsible for anything bin laden does... even in the 1980s?
here's my wacky perception of the world: what bin laden does is the responsibility of bin laden
if i gave you a gun, and you take that gun and you shoot your girlfriend, am i now responsible for you shooting your girlfriend?
or to make the analogy even wackier: i gave you a gun in 1980. in 2001, you use that gun to shoot your girlfriend. so i'm responsible? that's exactly how you wish to portray how things work with who is responsible for what al qaeda does
you're entire perception of how accountability and responsibility works in the real world is completely... retarded
simple human selfishness
unhampered by any empathy, understanding, or awareness of other people, other tribes, other nations
the failure is in not understanding that there are other valid points of view out there other than yours
most people learn in kindergarten an essential tool that is basically the source of all morality in the world: the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. this allows you to understand motivations and properly assign blame: sometimes your fault, sometimes there's
but for a significant percentage of individuals in any population at all times are those who never develop any sort of understanding of other people other than "its someone else's fault". its statistically inevitable, really, its simple a degenerate state of mind... there is no prerequisite for some minds to degenerate now and then, it happens automatically on a low grade level at all times. if two kindergarteners fight over a toy, most begin to understand cooperation and why we need to share. for a statistically inevitable few however, its always their toy, and all you have to do is fight harder for it, and there is no legitimacy in the idea anyone else should have anything except you. this carries on the rest of their lives. they cover it up, but the idea of cooperation and the moral lessons that spring from that never are revealed to them
such degenerate minds are often mired and hampered in life in dysfunctional interpersonal relationships that fail to be productive, simply because of their failed way of thinking about their relationship to the world. but for those who few figure out how to blame "the other", as in, the other tribe, the other nation, the other religion, the other ethnicity, etc.: these people actually win political and social influence and importance, simply because many people succumb to this way of thinking, even those who understand in interpersonal relationships, at least, why other people are not always to blame, and why they must shoulder responsibility themselves, but simple xenophobia limits their ability to apply that outside their family, their town, their region, etc.
require no qualifications, historical explanations, or excuses. ethnocentrism, tribalism, and nationalism are the fault of no one except the people exhibiting these traits. they spring spontaneously forth in any society or culture: nothing is required for these evils to exist except essential human selfishness and blindness towards anyone else
ethnocentrism, tribalism and nationalism are not byproducts of some sort of evil. ethnocentrism, tribalism and nationalism are the original sin, the original evil from which all the tyrants, al qaedas, and the like spring into existence. of course political organizations manipulate and use these ancient evils, but ethnocentrism, tribalism and nationalism are not created by vile political agendas, they precede them. ethnocentrism tribalism and nationalism creates the vile political agendas of the world, not the other way around
the crusades happened how many centuries ago?
we have to learn from history, not be trapped by history. history should teach you, not lock you in mindless recrimination
you are using the same idiotic logic that keeps the balkans buried in blood feuds going back for millenia. no, that does not work for explaining or condoning human behavior
the only way you assign accountability and responsibility is: if you do it, you're responsible. if your hands pulled a trigger that killed someone, who is responsible? you are. beginning and ending of responsibility. any other variation on that line of thinking is just "the devil made me do it": fabricated bullshit in an attempt to shift responsibility to vague hot button topics
you frame it as if al qaeda is a defensive organization, that somebody, the west, went in and stirred up trouble, implying that al qaeda is the fault of the west
al qaeda is an ethnocentric fundamentalist initiative, created by the middle east. you cannot possible hold the west responsible for chinese ultranationalism or russian ultranationalism. so why you would hold it responsible for arabic ethnocetrism?
this logic is broken: "the west did {xyz} bad thing in the middle east. therefore, every single bad person from the middle east is the respnsibility of the west"
here's a similarity: "al qaeda bombed the world trade center. therefore, george bush and dick cheney are the fault of al qaeda" this is of course bullshit. but its the same reasoning you use to attribute accountability and responsibility for the existence of al qaeda. al qaeda is a creation of the cultures of the middle east. period
just as soon as all of the "great thinkers" in this thread (riaa... really? torture? totalitarianism? do you know what these words actually mean?) figure out a way to trace terrorist funding WITHOUT this kind of snooping
oh right, terrorist funding doesn't exist, its a myth. its made up by neocons for mind control
zzz
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/12/most-awesomel-2/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/mabmp/
algae-based fuels MUST work, and MUST achieve greater efficiency
or we must learn to master fusion
but fission won't last forever, and fossil fuels won't last forever, and currently all renewable sources (including algae) are tiny boutique niche sources that won't satisfy our huge energy demands
civilization will go into decline unless we master alternative energy sources. civilization already funds the enemies of civilization in order to dig on their land (wahhabi islam is an obscenity... to hell with your moral relativism, reactionary fundamentalism of any religion is pure evil, but wahhabi islam is example #1 of this kind of evil)
so don't criticize, and don't joke. this is very serious. we must get this right. if these joule guys are snake oil salesman, then fine, to hell with them
but this entire subject matter is very serious. in the next 200 years, we will either master an alternative enery source, or in 800 years, after the next middle ages to come, there will be archeologists writing doctoral theses about why this age of man failed
and this story is about why we would fail: the inability to master cheap alternatives
to hell with killer asteroids, nanotech gone amok, atomic bombs in iran, or other speculative modern bogeymen. lack of cheap energy won't possibly do us in... on our current track, lack of cheap energy WILL do us in
this is the biggest issue of our time
new technologies change societies. the wheel, the sail, the arrow, the printing press, the gun, the locomotive, the radio, the a-bomb... each sets in motion dramatic changes in how societies are organized and the rules of that society, written and unwritten. basic human truths don't change, but how they are interpreted DO change. established orders are upset and are shuffled
and now the internet is dramatically changing how we view "intellectual property". the entire set of laws concerning intellectual property are completely defunct. the internet has made them defunct. publishers are not a gentleman's club of a few powerful industrialists anymore, but any teenager with a cable connection. there is no way the rules that bound the gentleman's club can bind a billion teenagers. enforcing existing intellectual property rules is a joke. its not some sort of amazing revolution to fight those archaic intellectual property rules, its more that it takes farcical effort to continue abiding by them
the notion that people deserve something for creating a work never changes. but what they actually deserve and how that recognition is attributed DOES change. those who cling to the past think the debate is about giving content creators nothing. those who understand the future know its just about changing how attribution and respect will come to content creators tomorrow. no one thinks it is about ripping off content creators, that's just an unbridled fear
distributors, of course, are completely doomed. the internet has simply replaced them as much more efficient and cheaper. distributors must evolve into glorified talent agents, shadows of their former selves, or succumb to inevitable extinction. no one weeps for the chimney sweep or the horseshoe blacksmith, and so no one should shed a tear for nature, bertelsmann, etc.
you can google for it, i think you'll find research
but i remember watching a special on abc, i think, many years back, where they had two guys behind a one way mirror and they picked random women out of a shopping mall, and made up stories about the men:
guy #1: owned 3 cars (all high end models), millionaire, devotes extra time to charity and orphans, etc. the perfect guy... and short
guy #2: still lived with parents, had problem keeping a job or waking up in the morning, had run-ins with the law, etc. a horrible guy... and tall
they kept changing up the guy's stories like this, to all sorts of extremes of character, and the random women kept picking the tall guy as a better choice of mate
showing that the usual women's complaint of men being shallow for relying so much on physicality rather than character when choosing a mate is a completely bullshit complaint on the part of women. because women are just as shallow as men when it comes to physicality, except instead of ass size/ breast size/ waist size, women go for height
to work fewer days of longer hours, emphasis on evening hours when no one else is around in the office, for exactly the reasons mentioned in the article
at the very least, thank you very much for the article slashdot/ graham, it has great propaganda value and was just forwarded to my boss 1 minute ago as a follow up petition
men are getting taller
you could say this is a function of a better diet (but you can also say women getting more "beautiful" is a function of a better diet as well)
so while men are selecting and refining the secondary sexual characteristics they like in women constantly, as reflected in offspring, women are doing the same right back at men
women are constantly haranguing men for being so focused on shallow physical aspects of a woman rather than her character, but women are in fact just as shallow as men: they always choose the taller men, and excuse character shortcomings if the guy is tall
so men are in fact getting taller and taller, and therefore the species as well, but you see it in the height dimorphism between the sexes. height-linked genes on the y chromosome are under as much evolutionary pressure as "beauty" genes on the x chromosome in women, via sexual selection way more than natural selection
and you can see this sexual selection in its debilitating effects on health. women have a high rate of breast cancer, no doubt because there is evolutionary pressure to inflate those things regardless of potential negatives of unbridled cell growth. and men have a high rate of heart attacks, which is of course linked to all sorts of bad health issues, but height counts in this higher rate (studies have shown a significant connection between height and a higher rate of heart attacks)
extrapolating to the scifi future, men will need the evolutionary adapations of giraffes in order to maintain the physicial characteristics pleasing to the female eye, and women will evolve bright red asses/ breasts like female baboons, perhaps...
a /b/tard is not created. a /b/tard is made
FWIW, it took evolution millions of years to come up with a wheel. this is a very efficient way of moving intelligent beings with use of biomagnetics (repulse + attract) around a solid water crust with a nitrogen atmosphere. I'm not so sure this is a "one in hundreds" of potentially useful evolutionary ideas, but rather one in very few. That it's trilaterally symmetric comes from cellular agglomeration, and there is so far little supporting evidence that alternative mechanisms can support a three meter tall intelligent organism well
to stop supporting the perfect perch for haast's eagle eggs as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haast's_Eagle
the russians are motivated by loss of profits and loss of snooping ability
and you wish to frame this as an open source/ closed source argument
make believe that skype were 100% open sourced (in fact, there are such open source skype-like products out there). you honestly want to represent that the russian attitude would be any different towards open source software?
if the world lags sufficiently behind the west, jealousy and hatred sets in, then all sorts of problems
you care, because you have a human conscience, not a western conscience
caring only about your own community and not caring about genocide somewhere else is not noble, its selfish
i think copyright is a dead concept
but in a world where genocides and starvation and slavery still occur, to speak about "human rights" about internet access is overly pompous
don't ratchet your language up on concerns of, frankly, nonimportant issues to the basics of human dignity
i mean we could also call what karoo is doing "terrorism"
but its the same overuse of terminology meant for far more dire situations than anything remotely touching this case
put a "tick" in the market place
the exchange's computers receives orders on a nice lazy interval, say every ten seconds. it may receive a bunch of orders at various milliseconds, but it simply queues them, then releases them at the ten second mark, all with the same timestamp
this removes the unfair manipulations of large players with lots of server iron at the expense of small traders
because surely this sort of fast trading is unegalitarian and against the notion of a free market
i have to defend the obvious wrongness of these fast trades, since it seems some people in this comment thread actually consider this bullshit fair, probably because they're involved and have sold their conscience
you know, the same sort of assholes who bought us million dollar mortgages for waitresses
who cares if you're damaging the marketplace and the economy, right? as long as you're fucking cashing in, right?