Except for that the prevailing attitude is, "Don't give them food, and, okay, well, sure, teach them how to fish. But don't tax me for it. And I don't want to be the one to teach them. And make sure they have to buy their own fishing rod. And I don't want to be forced to fish less because now we have more fishermen."
Yes, maybe it is. But it doesn't have to be yours, and surely it's not mine (and I am not saying that it is yours either, just that I don't know you enought to confirm this or that). What I meant is that attacking ways to facilitate the wealth to choose the governament it's not the best way to help those on the pyramid's bottom to achieve a better life. It doesn't matter, IMHO, how you choose, but whom do you choose and why. Give people information and release them free.
The wealthy want their cake, and then they want to eat it.
No, everybody wants the cake. It's not only the wealth, this is a classic falacy of A = B, B = C, so A = C (whic is not true). It's not because the wealth have more cake, and they want more, and they have better ways to have it, that the poor won't get any piece, or that they are forbidden to try to get it.
But, I must note, I DO THINK that this happens, poor are forbidden to touch the cake (at least the sweet part of it). I just don't agree with the way you put it, since everyone wants the cake.
That whole "Well, things are already unequal, so what's wrong with making it a little bit more unequal" argument is self-affirming redderick, and I have no doubt that it only contributes to the social 'fault line' that has exploded many times in history before.
Me too. I am against what is preached. But the car argument IS NOT the reason why the world is fucked up. If so, we should not be allowed to vote. If we were to forbid every way to make people vote easier, we would have simply to have only one voter. If you present the argument that distance from the voting point is harmful to those far away from it, you will get to the point where the only possible solution is to have only one person casting their vote.
It's a bit strange, because practically, that's what happen. You have the 'one' media in favour of a candidate, the 'one' society sector in favor of a condidate, etc... Our socials desire to have interactions with other humans and the concessions that we allow to make these situations possible, generates an attrition to the final objective of a democracy.
Sadly, this has been said many times, since the governament wants to keep their power, and they have to get votes from people to do so, democracy is in fact a denial of the truth, the 'ultimate' truth. Because the power is always bending itself to allow the continuity of the status, and NOT pursuing a real, real close to, truth.
PS: I am enjoying having this conversation, and don't take anything personally;-)
Yeah, but it's like gun control. If you believe people can have guns, then you must assume there's a risk involved that things will go to one side, good, or bad.
I say we take the risk, and don't forget to put a red buton that reads "Eletrical Emission All Planet".
A LOT of things make this experiment non-darwinistic. For instance, can the robots reproduce? Do the predators also have their own predators?
It's an experiment with a few goals, not to reproduce an entire (or most of the) evolutionary system.
For instance, we don't even 100% truly, truly know why we are here, why we do those things. This experiment will neither help to find this answer, it's not close to the objective. So you could argue "The scientists are assuming that obtaining energy is a desirable goal, but we don't know for sure if it is".
What this experiment MIGHT find out is if Artificial Intelligence is ready to reproduce some of the common sense among humans.
Okay, maybe youd didn't mean, but it was implied. You didn't mentioned people would have the option to not vote over the internet.
If I made a mistake, I am sorry, it's the way I read your comment that made me assume what I said. If I am wrong, again, sorry.
But now I have to agree with envelope's comment. If you believe that different types of access to vote will create barriers for a better development of the democratic system, and a better choice of governament, then you should extend your argument to convince me why, why other facilities are different than the one possible using the internet.
I have to say, that if you want to break the status quo, it's not about HOW we choose our representants, but instead, like it has always been, about WHO you chooe.
Instead, if this situation must be changed, first convince everyone (from the bottom of the social pyramid) that voting is important (since in USA is optional), that they must vote, and, inform who are the candidates, why they must vote for whetever they choose, give them the ability to think and make they know that there are ways, peaceful ways, to change the system.
It reminds me of 'Don't give them food, teach them how to fish'.
... who said that this system, if ever implemented, will allow only votes made by the net valid? Even if the current draft of this proposal says so, it can be changed when fully released.
IMHO several voting systems can co-exist peacefully.
I accidentaly press stop?
My house eletric power goes down? (California?)
I press eject?
I roll over the remote control and press every button?
An emergency happens and I need to stop, turn off everything and get out?
Se where do I want to go? I believe net's future is on the services part of the economy, but descentralized. You will have individuals offering their work without much interference from large companies. Like a peer to peer trade system.
Quick overview, lightly re-arranged so it's easier to understand:
It's said that computer's (for lack of better word) 'power' doubles every 2 years. But that's when humans are developing the new technologies. Artificial Intelligence and bio-implants will allow us to discover and improve technologies faster. Instead of 2 years, it will take 18 months. Then we improve our brain with these new techs and it will take 12 months.
From 12, to 10, 6, 3, 1 month. Then to every week. Then to everyday, every hour, every minute. Then singularity will come, probaly when a computer's power doubles every second.
Imagine the speed of the changes. Nanotech will allow us to redefine reality, uploading (store your brain on a computer) will make us immortals, every sci-fi dream might come true.
I highly recommed to read a few sites from the link on this message. It might come or not, but if it does, a whole new society will emerge. So at least do it to get ready, or to have something new to discuss while having a beer with your friends;-)
There's also the tight integration of the world market, like stocks. Imagine if a determined group shuts down [random country]'s [financial institution].
It's incredible how in the name of security some governaments are leveraging citizen's life style. You must act like everybody else so you're not caught as beign weird, strange, which of course, means suspicious, terrorist, etc...
At the same time, media and cheap self-help books tell you how important is to be unique.
I wonder when this clash of morals will erupt and become a real problem.
Not for the Slashdot community, paranoic by nature, but for the average citizen. One side you have concerns about your security, phisically speaken (survival), and you empower governaments to garantee this desire.
On the the other side, you have your social needs to be fulfilled, and you (most people anyway) empowered the media to advice them about what is 'in', and what is soooooo 90.
They are helping MS (by hurting their competition) when they advocate Linux.
Falacy. Isn't Linux 'competion' for Microsoft? How como advocating Linux is good for MS? Sure it's bad for Unix. But if restricted help to only one competition.
That could be extend to any operating system that is not Windows and Unix. MacOS? Hurts. BSD? Hurts.
I think your point doesn't make sense (altought it began making;-)
Please install module think-2.45 beta-release, compiling from source with libraries gcc 2.55, xterminal 0.14 without anti-alias fonts, then apt-get latest irony-5.76, not 5.67 (because conflicts with terms-1.0009.56b while long_numbers-11.5674.678-179zb processes). Should you/.make while no mission-critical PID runs, and convergence-5.888huhuljlkvjsafdmnf.tgz is disable with --no-nothing, run in/usr/bin install from/usr/home, and as root.
That's why, sometimes installing Linux software is worse then launching the Holy Grail.
Are you kidding me? I'm using it to browse the internet right never!
Re:This is the result of double counting...
on
EverQuest and the UN
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yes you get a high per capita income, that's one of the points of the article. Rich people spending their money on EQ.
But no, it's not double counting. You can analize the bigger picture and still maintain data from the smaller factors that leaded to the main conclusion.
It's like saying that in A + B = Y you are double counting A's value because it's part of the 'total' (Y).
It supports multiple hosts download, so if you were an user of Xolox, but want a client that development still continues and you want to get those large files using multiple connections, get it now. Sadly, download of partial files from other hosts is still not possible (since there's no consensus from the Gnutella protocol developers about how this should work).
Gnucleus even has a LAN mode, so you may run it to share files over your network that has locked ports or net access blocked (great for colleges!).
Raj talks about people. He cites a lot of names, feelings, relationships. It's constructed around what people are feeling about a situation, the actions that they are seeing and their reactions;
And Amazon's Management talks about numbers. It quotes lots of statistics, managers, and 'market condition'. It's constructed around what people are analysing about a situation, the actions that they are taking and the reactions.
It's classical from a literature perspective. And IMHO, I prefer much more Raj's point of view.
But maybe I am a misplaced human on a capitalist society;-)
That's the basis of every competitive behavior and interaction between people all over the world.
When I play chess with my friends, I don't feel that much adrenaline rolling. What I mean is that the "Paranoic Thrillseeking" feeling is not related at all with chess. It's the enviroment that causes this. It's competition, risks of loss, the chance that what you have studied and fought might crumble.
You are mixing up some things. Marketing is different of actual price which is different from perceived price.
You almost never market a diamond and say how much it does cost. That's not the value that people are looking for when they want to buy a diamond. They want the status, the value of owning something rare, something adored by other people, something that a loved one will like, something that's said to have destroyed governaments.
But yes, diamonds are expensive primarily because they are rare. Yes, marketing does play a role here, but on the final actual price, it's not the major factor. If you could dig a 2 inch hole on the ground and get some diamonds they would not even have a price.
Ooops, yes, they would. Because not only that, diamonds have practical uses, since it's the hardest natural element found on nature... it cuts, digs giant holes on the ground, and plays records:-)
I know of a study that researchers went to a shopping mall with two jars. One was full of cookies, and the other had only one or two.
They were the same cookie, but people answered that the ones that came from the jar with less cookies were more delicious.
That's a classic for anyone who went to college and studied Advertisement (like I did for 2 years), but it's always worth to remember.
And of course, you can enlarge this 'rule' to several other areas. Diamonds/gold are expensive because they are rare. And brunnete women are hotter in Sweden because the predominant feminine type there is blond.
Anyway, the article is temporal. Sophisticated customers is, if true, at maximum, a temporary effect. More and more 'common' people are using the internet, and this trend will only continue to rise in the future.
And you know, despite what many people think, most rich people do NOT spend a lot of money. On contrary, they SAVE a lot. There are a lot of more millionaries in the world than the guy from your school that got a expensive car from his daddy. And the tip Nr. 1 from these abundant but hidden rich people is: "Save every penny".
I think the study made by Charles Wood had such fallacy on it, and what in fact happened is that he justified the higher prices with a limited cause, and not the contrary. That's usually not how decent social researchs are done.
I don't like when people get Karma because they think that a site is Slashdotted or that it will be.
Sometimes a server get a high load and gets offline for 5 minutes and people already consider it slashdotted. I have seen people that copied an article while I could still access the website. Props to the webmasters and system administrators for handling this situation by fixing bandwith and loading problems.
But, simply 'mirror' a text is not valid for positive karma points. Because you don't need brains to get these points. It's not something that adds up to the discussion. We have a user getting positive karma because he came first.
It's like if we continue with this, one day we might see instead of First Post! comments, something in the line of:
Slashdot Mirror
Except for that the prevailing attitude is, "Don't give them food, and, okay, well, sure, teach them how to fish. But don't tax me for it. And I don't want to be the one to teach them. And make sure they have to buy their own fishing rod. And I don't want to be forced to fish less because now we have more fishermen."
;-)
Yes, maybe it is. But it doesn't have to be yours, and surely it's not mine (and I am not saying that it is yours either, just that I don't know you enought to confirm this or that). What I meant is that attacking ways to facilitate the wealth to choose the governament it's not the best way to help those on the pyramid's bottom to achieve a better life. It doesn't matter, IMHO, how you choose, but whom do you choose and why. Give people information and release them free.
The wealthy want their cake, and then they want to eat it.
No, everybody wants the cake. It's not only the wealth, this is a classic falacy of A = B, B = C, so A = C (whic is not true). It's not because the wealth have more cake, and they want more, and they have better ways to have it, that the poor won't get any piece, or that they are forbidden to try to get it.
But, I must note, I DO THINK that this happens, poor are forbidden to touch the cake (at least the sweet part of it). I just don't agree with the way you put it, since everyone wants the cake.
That whole "Well, things are already unequal, so what's wrong with making it a little bit more unequal" argument is self-affirming redderick, and I have no doubt that it only contributes to the social 'fault line' that has exploded many times in history before.
Me too. I am against what is preached. But the car argument IS NOT the reason why the world is fucked up. If so, we should not be allowed to vote. If we were to forbid every way to make people vote easier, we would have simply to have only one voter. If you present the argument that distance from the voting point is harmful to those far away from it, you will get to the point where the only possible solution is to have only one person casting their vote.
It's a bit strange, because practically, that's what happen. You have the 'one' media in favour of a candidate, the 'one' society sector in favor of a condidate, etc... Our socials desire to have interactions with other humans and the concessions that we allow to make these situations possible, generates an attrition to the final objective of a democracy.
Sadly, this has been said many times, since the governament wants to keep their power, and they have to get votes from people to do so, democracy is in fact a denial of the truth, the 'ultimate' truth. Because the power is always bending itself to allow the continuity of the status, and NOT pursuing a real, real close to, truth.
PS: I am enjoying having this conversation, and don't take anything personally
I wonder how many Matrix comments this article will receive.
Deja-vu.
Yeah, but it's like gun control. If you believe people can have guns, then you must assume there's a risk involved that things will go to one side, good, or bad.
I say we take the risk, and don't forget to put a red buton that reads "Eletrical Emission All Planet".
A LOT of things make this experiment non-darwinistic. For instance, can the robots reproduce? Do the predators also have their own predators?
It's an experiment with a few goals, not to reproduce an entire (or most of the) evolutionary system.
For instance, we don't even 100% truly, truly know why we are here, why we do those things. This experiment will neither help to find this answer, it's not close to the objective. So you could argue "The scientists are assuming that obtaining energy is a desirable goal, but we don't know for sure if it is".
What this experiment MIGHT find out is if Artificial Intelligence is ready to reproduce some of the common sense among humans.
Okay, maybe youd didn't mean, but it was implied. You didn't mentioned people would have the option to not vote over the internet.
If I made a mistake, I am sorry, it's the way I read your comment that made me assume what I said. If I am wrong, again, sorry.
But now I have to agree with envelope's comment. If you believe that different types of access to vote will create barriers for a better development of the democratic system, and a better choice of governament, then you should extend your argument to convince me why, why other facilities are different than the one possible using the internet.
I have to say, that if you want to break the status quo, it's not about HOW we choose our representants, but instead, like it has always been, about WHO you chooe.
Instead, if this situation must be changed, first convince everyone (from the bottom of the social pyramid) that voting is important (since in USA is optional), that they must vote, and, inform who are the candidates, why they must vote for whetever they choose, give them the ability to think and make they know that there are ways, peaceful ways, to change the system.
It reminds me of 'Don't give them food, teach them how to fish'.
IMHO several voting systems can co-exist peacefully.
I accidentaly press stop?
;-)
My house eletric power goes down? (California?)
I press eject?
I roll over the remote control and press every button?
An emergency happens and I need to stop, turn off everything and get out?
Clumsy, take notes. I smell lawsuits.
Trading files between, if the system gets huge, would be what I would do.
Centralized Intelligence->
Descentralized Intelligence->
Centralized Media->
Descentralized Media->
Centralized Business->
...
Se where do I want to go? I believe net's future is on the services part of the economy, but descentralized. You will have individuals offering their work without much interference from large companies. Like a peer to peer trade system.
What might happen is the Singularity.
;-)
Quick overview, lightly re-arranged so it's easier to understand:
It's said that computer's (for lack of better word) 'power' doubles every 2 years. But that's when humans are developing the new technologies. Artificial Intelligence and bio-implants will allow us to discover and improve technologies faster. Instead of 2 years, it will take 18 months. Then we improve our brain with these new techs and it will take 12 months.
From 12, to 10, 6, 3, 1 month. Then to every week. Then to everyday, every hour, every minute. Then singularity will come, probaly when a computer's power doubles every second.
Imagine the speed of the changes. Nanotech will allow us to redefine reality, uploading (store your brain on a computer) will make us immortals, every sci-fi dream might come true.
I highly recommed to read a few sites from the link on this message. It might come or not, but if it does, a whole new society will emerge. So at least do it to get ready, or to have something new to discuss while having a beer with your friends
There's also the tight integration of the world market, like stocks. Imagine if a determined group shuts down [random country]'s [financial institution].
You can't go to space because you took drugs or you took drugs because you could not go to space?
It's incredible how in the name of security some governaments are leveraging citizen's life style. You must act like everybody else so you're not caught as beign weird, strange, which of course, means suspicious, terrorist, etc...
At the same time, media and cheap self-help books tell you how important is to be unique.
I wonder when this clash of morals will erupt and become a real problem.
Not for the Slashdot community, paranoic by nature, but for the average citizen. One side you have concerns about your security, phisically speaken (survival), and you empower governaments to garantee this desire.
On the the other side, you have your social needs to be fulfilled, and you (most people anyway) empowered the media to advice them about what is 'in', and what is soooooo 90.
They are helping MS (by hurting their competition) when they advocate Linux.
;-)
Falacy. Isn't Linux 'competion' for Microsoft? How como advocating Linux is good for MS? Sure it's bad for Unix. But if restricted help to only one competition.
That could be extend to any operating system that is not Windows and Unix. MacOS? Hurts. BSD? Hurts.
I think your point doesn't make sense (altought it began making
Please install module think-2.45 beta-release, compiling from source with libraries gcc 2.55, xterminal 0.14 without anti-alias fonts, then apt-get latest irony-5.76, not 5.67 (because conflicts with terms-1.0009.56b while long_numbers-11.5674.678-179zb processes). Should you /.make while no mission-critical PID runs, and convergence-5.888huhuljlkvjsafdmnf.tgz is disable with --no-nothing, run in /usr/bin install from /usr/home, and as root.
That's why, sometimes installing Linux software is worse then launching the Holy Grail.
Are you kidding me? I'm using it to browse the internet right never!
Yes you get a high per capita income, that's one of the points of the article. Rich people spending their money on EQ.
But no, it's not double counting. You can analize the bigger picture and still maintain data from the smaller factors that leaded to the main conclusion.
It's like saying that in A + B = Y you are double counting A's value because it's part of the 'total' (Y).
Why doesn't the RIAA come out with their own damn P2P?
;-)
Because if it has filters nobody is going to use.
Long emotional question, short factual answer
For Windows users:
There's an Open Source project hosted on Sourceforge called Gnucleus. Here is the project page.
It supports multiple hosts download, so if you were an user of Xolox, but want a client that development still continues and you want to get those large files using multiple connections, get it now. Sadly, download of partial files from other hosts is still not possible (since there's no consensus from the Gnutella protocol developers about how this should work).
Gnucleus even has a LAN mode, so you may run it to share files over your network that has locked ports or net access blocked (great for colleges!).
How about:
http://jennajameson.sucks.com
Or:
http://mylast_girlfriend_name.sucks.com
That would be welcome.
Editor asked to compare. I read and saw:
;-)
Raj talks about people. He cites a lot of names, feelings, relationships. It's constructed around what people are feeling about a situation, the actions that they are seeing and their reactions;
And Amazon's Management talks about numbers. It quotes lots of statistics, managers, and 'market condition'. It's constructed around what people are analysing about a situation, the actions that they are taking and the reactions.
It's classical from a literature perspective. And IMHO, I prefer much more Raj's point of view.
But maybe I am a misplaced human on a capitalist society
That's the basis of every competitive behavior and interaction between people all over the world.
When I play chess with my friends, I don't feel that much adrenaline rolling. What I mean is that the "Paranoic Thrillseeking" feeling is not related at all with chess. It's the enviroment that causes this. It's competition, risks of loss, the chance that what you have studied and fought might crumble.
You are mixing up some things. Marketing is different of actual price which is different from perceived price.
:-)
You almost never market a diamond and say how much it does cost. That's not the value that people are looking for when they want to buy a diamond. They want the status, the value of owning something rare, something adored by other people, something that a loved one will like, something that's said to have destroyed governaments.
But yes, diamonds are expensive primarily because they are rare. Yes, marketing does play a role here, but on the final actual price, it's not the major factor. If you could dig a 2 inch hole on the ground and get some diamonds they would not even have a price.
Ooops, yes, they would. Because not only that, diamonds have practical uses, since it's the hardest natural element found on nature... it cuts, digs giant holes on the ground, and plays records
I know of a study that researchers went to a shopping mall with two jars. One was full of cookies, and the other had only one or two.
They were the same cookie, but people answered that the ones that came from the jar with less cookies were more delicious.
That's a classic for anyone who went to college and studied Advertisement (like I did for 2 years), but it's always worth to remember.
And of course, you can enlarge this 'rule' to several other areas. Diamonds/gold are expensive because they are rare. And brunnete women are hotter in Sweden because the predominant feminine type there is blond.
Anyway, the article is temporal. Sophisticated customers is, if true, at maximum, a temporary effect. More and more 'common' people are using the internet, and this trend will only continue to rise in the future.
And you know, despite what many people think, most rich people do NOT spend a lot of money. On contrary, they SAVE a lot. There are a lot of more millionaries in the world than the guy from your school that got a expensive car from his daddy. And the tip Nr. 1 from these abundant but hidden rich people is: "Save every penny".
I think the study made by Charles Wood had such fallacy on it, and what in fact happened is that he justified the higher prices with a limited cause, and not the contrary. That's usually not how decent social researchs are done.
I don't like when people get Karma because they think that a site is Slashdotted or that it will be.
Sometimes a server get a high load and gets offline for 5 minutes and people already consider it slashdotted. I have seen people that copied an article while I could still access the website. Props to the webmasters and system administrators for handling this situation by fixing bandwith and loading problems.
But, simply 'mirror' a text is not valid for positive karma points. Because you don't need brains to get these points. It's not something that adds up to the discussion. We have a user getting positive karma because he came first.
It's like if we continue with this, one day we might see instead of First Post! comments, something in the line of:
First Mirror!
// Follows text