Anarchy is too unstructured to be of real use, though.
Aside from which, it's been tried hundreds of times in the past. People hate it. They'll take just about any form of government over anarchy any day of the week.
Larry Niven once posited that laws would become more and more draconian over time until even a certain multiple of traffic offenses carried with it the death penalty. The reason? An increasingly aging population would lack for fresh young replacement organs, and this would be a good way to collect them while at the same time imposing iron control on the rest of the population.
Seems to me that both the law and the application of it are moving to expand criminal penalties and to make those penalties harsher. What used to be civil infractions are becoming felonies. Only in this case it isn't an attempt to control the distribution of our organs, but of our labor, our ideas, and perhaps our very thoughts....
I'm not sure which possible future I find more reprehensible.
arguably one of the most important companies in the world
If you think a glorified search engine and free email provider is "one of the most important companies in the world" then I submit that your hold on reality is tenuous at best.
Time to get out the basement and breathe some fresh air.
Max
Re:Opera and Firefox [selective figures]
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 1
The guy capitalizes "free" and "free software". You're arguing with a zealot.
What's wrong with Privoxy? It'll do the job for you, no muss no fuss.
Max
Re:all-nine-users-cheer dept ??
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 1
Another Firefox fanboy. It really gets your panties in a wad that competition for your precious browser exists, doesn't it?
Max
let's cue the Firefox goons...
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 0, Troll
...who'll get their panties in a wad that some browser other than the one they worship actually has market share! The same folks who bitch and moan that IE dominates the market, but think it'd be just fine and dandy if Firefox did the same thing.
I guess monoculture is just fine so long as it's *your* culture.
I disagree with you here. I have a problem with closed source since unless I implicitly trust the supplier I'm never quite certain what the software is doing. For that reason I very much favor open source over closed source, even though I myself sometimes use closed source software (e.g. Opera).
However, I very much disagree with the 'free software uber alles' folks. I do not think everything has to be GPL'd or dumped into the public domain. I'm firmly with the copyright holder and think the unwashed masses need to shut the fuck up when it comes to something that isn't their property. Mob rule has no place here.
Although I despise MS for a variety of reasons I don't want Windows GPL'd or provided for free. I do, however, want it open source so I can see what the bloody hell is going on in the OS. It's fine if MS doesn't want to GPL, but I personally want to have the option of tearing apart the software on my computer to see how it works and to confirm that it isn't doing something it isn't supposed to.
Open source != free. You can open the source and still keep it for yourself via copyright laws - and protect jobs.
the F/OSS world has a shortage of artists. why is this?
My guess is that it's because artists like to eat, and it's a hell of a lot harder to make a living as an artist than a tech-head. Not a whole lot of time left over to wank off to Natalie Portman pics.
And that's the way it used to be with Weyerhauser, too. The idea was that trees were like any other crop and you could clear-cut and replant to your hearts content.
Only recently have people proven rather conclusively that isn't true. And I mean 'proven' as in 'it's bad for the crop', not as in 'some leftie ecogroup says it's bad'. Weyerhauser isn't experimenting with selective cutting because greenies object less but because it turns out that selective cutting combined with non-homogenous crops actually result in greater sustainable yields than clear-cutting and homogenous crops do.
But this is a new way of thinking and they're at the forefront of it. Most other companies still clear-cut (even Weyerhauser does on many of their plots), but in the industry itself things are starting to change.
The point is if you aren't brain-dead and your entire livelihood comes from the land, you tend to take care of it - even if it challenges the way you've done things in the past. If the land isn't yours and you're going to up and leave once you're done (slash 'n burn) why the hell should you care what happens after you're gone?
If anything the extremists should be encouraging Microsoft to be as closed, proprietary and cumbersome as they can possibly get. They seem to be shooting themselves in the foot here by trying to cajole/convince Microsoft into playing along.
Seriously, if you're one of those folks who sees all proprietary software as a tool of Satan (says me, writing this in Opera), you don't want Satans reps on Earth to soften their image. You want them to instead impress people over and over again with their Black-Hatness so even the most clueless will eventually wake up and say "what the fuck?"
You *want* MS to lock people in - and then bend them over and ream them good and hard once the lock-in is established. That creates enormous ill-will, especially to the PHBs who don't like anyone messing with their kingdoms. When the next opportunity comes to jump ship, they'll be that much more inclined to do so (e.g., when the next full-scale upgrade and conversion takes place).
The harder they squeeze, the more star systems, er, customers, that'll slip through their grasp.
So fanatics, crusaders, and all you "information wants to be free" loons (who STILL won't send me your credit card numbers, you hypocrits), reevaluate your game plan here. You're doing your cause a disservice. Every time MS screws over a customer pat them on the back and say "good job!"
WFT??? No company has a 'right' to earn a profit. While I don't know shit about the Canadian constitution I do know mine, and I can state unequivocably that no such right exists in the U.S. of A. Nor can a treaty put such a right in place (the 9th and 10th Amendments don't allow that).
I like living in a place where people care about each other to put their money where there mouth is rather than spouting rhetoric
Seems to me they're putting *other peoples money* where their mouth is. If Canadians are so much more damned righteous than Americans are you wouldn't need government taxation; y'all would contribute as much as is necessary for your programs out of the 'goodness of your heart'. I see, however, that you aren't quite *that* enlightened.
And explain to me if we Americans are such fucking stingy pricks why is it that as a percentage of disposal income we contribute at least as much to charity as you do? Which, by the way, is more absolute dollars per individual since we tend to make more money and keep more of it after taxes.
I love Canada. I think it's a damned fine nation. But all this anti-American bullshit serves only one purpose: to tell me that you're just as likely to be nasty little pricks as we are given the opportunity.
Of course humans are animals. Order Primate, Class Mammalia. Not a whole lot different than chimps or mountain gorillas; only a few hundred genes different from common field mice.
Within societies, humans naturally take care of the group before they take care of themselves.
Family first, that's the general rule. The group is a distant, distant second. And for many good reasons, genetic and otherwise. This is basic biology.
No one in their right mind would dispute someone favoring their own family over 'the group'. They may not like it if the outcome is something they disapprove of, but any normal, rational human being will definitely understand it.
Thus, agressively taking care of oneself or one's immediate family members with detriment to the group is interfering with the natural course of events.
That's a complete crock of shit. Perhaps when you get to college you might think about taking some basic biology and anthropology. It'll put the lie to your statement in the first week of classes, this I guarantee.
Honestly, that's how I see it. If we carry this discussion further, it will boil down to the question, "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"
Strawman. Favoring your family over 'the group' doesn't make one evil. Favoring 'the group' over family doesn't make one good, although I'd make a strong case for 'mentally disturbed'.
Who do you think "society" is, moron? It's *you*. You're to blame. Don't think you can foist your responsibility off on others by conjuring up the magic word "society" as a form of leftie CYA.
As in failure to help most of its individuals so that some born into priviledge assholes can shower themselves in absolute power and luxury.
Yeah, having money makes you evil, by default. Extremist looneytoon.
Weyerhauser owns a lot of land in Oregon. Because they own the land they're obsessed with making sure it yields maximum production. They work with the Forestry department and with large universities to determine how best to protect their land, since that's their livelihood at stake. Because of this they're moving away from monoculture crops and recommending selective harvesting, rather than clear-cutting. This is a timber company, mind you. In opposition to extremist greenie thinking they're at the forefront of sustainable land management; not because it's the 'right' thing to do (whatever that means) but because it'll keep the land productive for centuries to come.
Other timber companies rent public land and clear-cut the hell out of out, then often renege on their minimal replanting duties until they can tuck away their profits and dissolve the company (Southern Georgia, anyone?). Why should they give a shit about the land? The public will bail out their mess, after all.
For people with half a brain owning the land means taking care of it. Anything else spells disaster in the long run. This must be why Weyerhauser plans *100 years* into the future in terms of land management.
In older times when young girls married at 13, society had established goals for men and women. For women: Get married, raise kids, keep up a home. Usually some variances depending on class, but generally the same.
For nearly all of our history we've been nothing more than a collection of hunter-gatherer tribes. No one got married, there were no homes, and the girls didn't stay at the campfire and do the laundry. And there were no classes.
Civilization is a relatively new thing in our history.
Quit fucking worrying about the bad drivers - its not your job to legislate their stupidity, because they're going to be dumbasses even if you make it illegal.
Sure it is. Their bad driving endangers everyone around them. And I'll happily back any bill that FORCES everyone to use computer-controlled cars, once the technology gets good enough. If people want to manually drive, they can go to a track designed just for them.
And I'll be laughing the whole time.
Contrary to your fascist beliefs that everyone should enjoy books and not driving, driving for some people is about more than getting from point A to point B... why else would would have sport cars and motorcycles?
Like I said, we'll set aside special driving reserves for you and your friends. The roads that everyone else travels, however, will be off-limits to manual drivers.
They were preparing to meet on the girl's 17th birthday when one of the monitor's co-workers became suspicious and prevented the encounter.
Read: "a male coworker, pissed off that he wasn't getting any 17-year-old action (or any at all, probably; he DOES work for AOL), decided to ruin things for everyone on the theory that 'if I'm not having sex, he doesn't get to have it either'".
15-17y old kids are having one night stands these days, so it's not they are into some weird thing.
They were having one night stands in my day. This isn't exactly new, no matter how the media trumps it up. The only difference here is that my generation wasn't stupid enough to spill the beans to anyone old enough to ruin the show.
Slashdot Mirror
Anarchy is too unstructured to be of real use, though.
Aside from which, it's been tried hundreds of times in the past. People hate it. They'll take just about any form of government over anarchy any day of the week.
Max
Larry Niven once posited that laws would become more and more draconian over time until even a certain multiple of traffic offenses carried with it the death penalty. The reason? An increasingly aging population would lack for fresh young replacement organs, and this would be a good way to collect them while at the same time imposing iron control on the rest of the population.
Seems to me that both the law and the application of it are moving to expand criminal penalties and to make those penalties harsher. What used to be civil infractions are becoming felonies. Only in this case it isn't an attempt to control the distribution of our organs, but of our labor, our ideas, and perhaps our very thoughts....
I'm not sure which possible future I find more reprehensible.
Max
arguably one of the most important companies in the world
If you think a glorified search engine and free email provider is "one of the most important companies in the world" then I submit that your hold on reality is tenuous at best.
Time to get out the basement and breathe some fresh air.
Max
The guy capitalizes "free" and "free software". You're arguing with a zealot.
Max
What's wrong with Privoxy? It'll do the job for you, no muss no fuss.
Max
Another Firefox fanboy. It really gets your panties in a wad that competition for your precious browser exists, doesn't it?
Max
...who'll get their panties in a wad that some browser other than the one they worship actually has market share! The same folks who bitch and moan that IE dominates the market, but think it'd be just fine and dandy if Firefox did the same thing.
I guess monoculture is just fine so long as it's *your* culture.
Max
Plus, any features that Opera would have that might distinguish it (mouse gestures, I believe) very few people use.
And you would know this because....?
Max
You're falling into a common trap of assuming that anybody that encourages MS to open their formats and code is an "extremist".
Oh heck no. Some of them are whiners.
Max
I"P" is intrinsically a force of tyranny.
And you telling everyone else what to think about the issue is freedom?
Max
It's spelled "hypocrite", by the way.
And it'd be spelled that way in my post too, if there was an edit function in slashdot.
Max
I disagree with you here. I have a problem with closed source since unless I implicitly trust the supplier I'm never quite certain what the software is doing. For that reason I very much favor open source over closed source, even though I myself sometimes use closed source software (e.g. Opera).
However, I very much disagree with the 'free software uber alles' folks. I do not think everything has to be GPL'd or dumped into the public domain. I'm firmly with the copyright holder and think the unwashed masses need to shut the fuck up when it comes to something that isn't their property. Mob rule has no place here.
Although I despise MS for a variety of reasons I don't want Windows GPL'd or provided for free. I do, however, want it open source so I can see what the bloody hell is going on in the OS. It's fine if MS doesn't want to GPL, but I personally want to have the option of tearing apart the software on my computer to see how it works and to confirm that it isn't doing something it isn't supposed to.
Open source != free. You can open the source and still keep it for yourself via copyright laws - and protect jobs.
Max
the F/OSS world has a shortage of artists. why is this?
My guess is that it's because artists like to eat, and it's a hell of a lot harder to make a living as an artist than a tech-head. Not a whole lot of time left over to wank off to Natalie Portman pics.
Max
And that's the way it used to be with Weyerhauser, too. The idea was that trees were like any other crop and you could clear-cut and replant to your hearts content.
Only recently have people proven rather conclusively that isn't true. And I mean 'proven' as in 'it's bad for the crop', not as in 'some leftie ecogroup says it's bad'. Weyerhauser isn't experimenting with selective cutting because greenies object less but because it turns out that selective cutting combined with non-homogenous crops actually result in greater sustainable yields than clear-cutting and homogenous crops do.
But this is a new way of thinking and they're at the forefront of it. Most other companies still clear-cut (even Weyerhauser does on many of their plots), but in the industry itself things are starting to change.
The point is if you aren't brain-dead and your entire livelihood comes from the land, you tend to take care of it - even if it challenges the way you've done things in the past. If the land isn't yours and you're going to up and leave once you're done (slash 'n burn) why the hell should you care what happens after you're gone?
Max
If anything the extremists should be encouraging Microsoft to be as closed, proprietary and cumbersome as they can possibly get. They seem to be shooting themselves in the foot here by trying to cajole/convince Microsoft into playing along.
Seriously, if you're one of those folks who sees all proprietary software as a tool of Satan (says me, writing this in Opera), you don't want Satans reps on Earth to soften their image. You want them to instead impress people over and over again with their Black-Hatness so even the most clueless will eventually wake up and say "what the fuck?"
You *want* MS to lock people in - and then bend them over and ream them good and hard once the lock-in is established. That creates enormous ill-will, especially to the PHBs who don't like anyone messing with their kingdoms. When the next opportunity comes to jump ship, they'll be that much more inclined to do so (e.g., when the next full-scale upgrade and conversion takes place).
The harder they squeeze, the more star systems, er, customers, that'll slip through their grasp.
So fanatics, crusaders, and all you "information wants to be free" loons (who STILL won't send me your credit card numbers, you hypocrits), reevaluate your game plan here. You're doing your cause a disservice. Every time MS screws over a customer pat them on the back and say "good job!"
Max
and the right to earn a profit
WFT??? No company has a 'right' to earn a profit. While I don't know shit about the Canadian constitution I do know mine, and I can state unequivocably that no such right exists in the U.S. of A. Nor can a treaty put such a right in place (the 9th and 10th Amendments don't allow that).
Max
I like living in a place where people care about each other to put their money where there mouth is rather than spouting rhetoric
Seems to me they're putting *other peoples money* where their mouth is. If Canadians are so much more damned righteous than Americans are you wouldn't need government taxation; y'all would contribute as much as is necessary for your programs out of the 'goodness of your heart'. I see, however, that you aren't quite *that* enlightened.
And explain to me if we Americans are such fucking stingy pricks why is it that as a percentage of disposal income we contribute at least as much to charity as you do? Which, by the way, is more absolute dollars per individual since we tend to make more money and keep more of it after taxes.
I love Canada. I think it's a damned fine nation. But all this anti-American bullshit serves only one purpose: to tell me that you're just as likely to be nasty little pricks as we are given the opportunity.
Max
humans are not animals
Of course humans are animals. Order Primate, Class Mammalia. Not a whole lot different than chimps or mountain gorillas; only a few hundred genes different from common field mice.
Within societies, humans naturally take care of the group before they take care of themselves.
Family first, that's the general rule. The group is a distant, distant second. And for many good reasons, genetic and otherwise. This is basic biology.
No one in their right mind would dispute someone favoring their own family over 'the group'. They may not like it if the outcome is something they disapprove of, but any normal, rational human being will definitely understand it.
Thus, agressively taking care of oneself or one's immediate family members with detriment to the group is interfering with the natural course of events.
That's a complete crock of shit. Perhaps when you get to college you might think about taking some basic biology and anthropology. It'll put the lie to your statement in the first week of classes, this I guarantee.
Honestly, that's how I see it. If we carry this discussion further, it will boil down to the question, "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"
Strawman. Favoring your family over 'the group' doesn't make one evil. Favoring 'the group' over family doesn't make one good, although I'd make a strong case for 'mentally disturbed'.
Max
And it is society's fault.
Who do you think "society" is, moron? It's *you*. You're to blame. Don't think you can foist your responsibility off on others by conjuring up the magic word "society" as a form of leftie CYA.
As in failure to help most of its individuals so that some born into priviledge assholes can shower themselves in absolute power and luxury.
Yeah, having money makes you evil, by default. Extremist looneytoon.
Max
One word: Weyerhauser.
Weyerhauser owns a lot of land in Oregon. Because they own the land they're obsessed with making sure it yields maximum production. They work with the Forestry department and with large universities to determine how best to protect their land, since that's their livelihood at stake. Because of this they're moving away from monoculture crops and recommending selective harvesting, rather than clear-cutting. This is a timber company, mind you. In opposition to extremist greenie thinking they're at the forefront of sustainable land management; not because it's the 'right' thing to do (whatever that means) but because it'll keep the land productive for centuries to come.
Other timber companies rent public land and clear-cut the hell out of out, then often renege on their minimal replanting duties until they can tuck away their profits and dissolve the company (Southern Georgia, anyone?). Why should they give a shit about the land? The public will bail out their mess, after all.
For people with half a brain owning the land means taking care of it. Anything else spells disaster in the long run. This must be why Weyerhauser plans *100 years* into the future in terms of land management.
Max
In older times when young girls married at 13, society had established goals for men and women. For women: Get married, raise kids, keep up a home. Usually some variances depending on class, but generally the same.
For nearly all of our history we've been nothing more than a collection of hunter-gatherer tribes. No one got married, there were no homes, and the girls didn't stay at the campfire and do the laundry. And there were no classes.
Civilization is a relatively new thing in our history.
Max
Quit fucking worrying about the bad drivers - its not your job to legislate their stupidity, because they're going to be dumbasses even if you make it illegal.
Sure it is. Their bad driving endangers everyone around them. And I'll happily back any bill that FORCES everyone to use computer-controlled cars, once the technology gets good enough. If people want to manually drive, they can go to a track designed just for them.
And I'll be laughing the whole time.
Contrary to your fascist beliefs that everyone should enjoy books and not driving, driving for some people is about more than getting from point A to point B... why else would would have sport cars and motorcycles?
Like I said, we'll set aside special driving reserves for you and your friends. The roads that everyone else travels, however, will be off-limits to manual drivers.
And I'll *still* be laughing.
Max
They were preparing to meet on the girl's 17th birthday when one of the monitor's co-workers became suspicious and prevented the encounter.
Read: "a male coworker, pissed off that he wasn't getting any 17-year-old action (or any at all, probably; he DOES work for AOL), decided to ruin things for everyone on the theory that 'if I'm not having sex, he doesn't get to have it either'".
Max
15-17y old kids are having one night stands these days, so it's not they are into some weird thing.
They were having one night stands in my day. This isn't exactly new, no matter how the media trumps it up. The only difference here is that my generation wasn't stupid enough to spill the beans to anyone old enough to ruin the show.
Max
n America, we all agree that girls and boys that are 15 years old should not be having sex, rather they should be having a full childhood.
No, we don't all agree. You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Do try to remember that.
I'm asking, on behalf of the United States, for the same of respect for our laws in this regards.
My, you certainly have delusions of grandeur. You might want to see a therapist about your problem....
Max