Did you read the GP?
Just because you can't see the advantage in some feature doesn't mean that there isn't one. In addition, it was my understanding that it's possible for new features to appear and get "carried along" so long as they're not too detrimental to the organism's survival and procreation. They may or may not turn out to be useful later on. Basically there doesn't need to be any obvious, nor actual selective benefit for any evolved feature, as long as it is not at a detriment to the individual. If there is no reason to lose an accidental mutation, it will stay. Evolution has no brain.
That said, at some point these accidental features might become useful as based on the whim of the environment, and then will be actively selected for. Or visa versa, of course.
The insightful jest here is that these possibly (though doubtfully) useless accidental features have become useful.
Also a lot of people refuse to mod +1 funny, since it doesn't actually benefit the poster's karma in any way. Insightful at least gives them something.
Oh god, the Nerd/Dork/Geek argument. We always went with nerds being unwashed, antisocial geniuses who small vaguely like cheese, and somehow manage to reference Yoda, and differential equations in every utterance. Dorks are just like nerds, but dumber. And geeks are the swashbuckling generalists who get all the chicks (er...) because they have some modicum of social skills, while still knowing their swallows apart.
By your jargon though, there still is a deep relation between nerds and dorks, since both of them are "systems" people. D&D is just another complex system to play with, just like math, code, and circuits. As is, oddly, the various nerd friendly mythologies. Both groups, by your classification, are equally likely to get the chicks... Not very. Neither math nor D&D impress many of the chicks I know.
So where does arguing over the semantics of nerdery put one?
I'm not a Mac fanboy (typing this on a Vista laptop, while installing Ubuntu, and listening to music on my Mac Mini media box), but you really should try some of the more modern iterations of OS X. 2002 was 10.2, I think, which was pretty damn bad, but much better than OS 8 or 9. 10.4 is pretty solid, once you get used to it, 10.5 is... not big enough an upgrade to bother spending $150 for (the Vista of Apple). The only beef I have is that you can't really customize it, it does just work, but only in one way.
The various *nix OSs are getting there (with KDE 4, and whatever Gnome is on now), but they still have a hobbiest look to them. And often completely customizing my OS is somewhat a pain. Too many choices can sometimes be a bad thing (ala cognitive dissonance).
Personally I'd put OS X and XP on the same level, followed by Vista, then closely followed by your favorite *nix window manager. Not by a very large spread, though. Since your choice of OS should really meet your needs, and therefore there is no objective standard.
The mini was my main machine until I found a cheap Vista laptop to play with (which is now my internet and work machine), the Mac is better at media (IMO) and thus its the photo, music, and creative work machine. The linux install is (right now) just a toy with aspirations of taking over Vista thanks to a virus experience, and its wonky file permissions.
In a solipsist reality (MY reality), you can't prove the existence of others, therefore verification from without is impossible. When you present evidence from outside my POV, I can easily claim I made you up, AND the information you represent. Thus I preserve my world-view without any real conflict with it.
Er... I've been though the philosophy ringer, so let me try...
Your base premise "god is..." is not fundamental, making us again try to prove the validity, or lack of, of that premise. If your primary premise is not true, the whole argument dies.
Also your buying into Berkeley. Is the universe around when no one is aware of it? If I close my eyes, the universe goes away (via my lack of awareness). Therefore someone must be watching all the time. Therefore God must exist.
How can an entity be "self awareness" itself? Wouldn't it have to be something to be aware of itself? There is no "it" there, just a reductio.
5. All which is not self aware, is not real, it's junk information, it's noise, it's fake, it's illusion
Leibniz, I thought you died. Did you have to read the Monadology yet? Its pretty close to what your talking about. Its one of the last exercises in pure idealistic metaphysics, completely lacking in good old-fashioned, empiricism. Just because you devise a coherent system, does not mean it is true, you need to found it in something external to itself to grant it any penumbra of validity.
You also verge a bit on solipsism. Can you be certain I am aware? If not, how can you be certain of anything external of the self? And if all the rocks, rivers, neutrons, quarks, and puppies, are not aware, and just illusions, where is the source in the commonality of appearance between your view and that of others (barring said solipsism). There must then be an objective basis of these "illusions" (a Kantian, or phenomenological thing-in-itself say), and thus they are not illusions, but only the improperly understood impressions that they are.
In my honest opinion, your confusing faulty epistemology with metaphysics. The absence of truth is not proof of a true absence, to muddle a cliche to my egotistical purposes.
Agreed. Thats like saying an astronomer's opinion means nothing regarding astrology. If you're studying "the philosophy of religion", you've already decided on a camp.
In some cases, yes, in some no. I took a philosophy of religion class from a man who who completely ambiguous on his own views (reading his book, I think he may have been a crypto-catholic). About half the class was taking it just for seminary, the other half was roughly split between agnostics and atheists (the philosophy majors fit into both of these equally).
The class was basically a discussion of the merits of the logic of the various "proofs" of gods existence, and a critique of of various philosophical views on religion. It didn't move one down any particular path.
This unapproximated reality is actually just another approximation of the unaccessible Kantian numina intrepreted by various sensory inputs (and their limitations), and obscure and imperfect neural pathways, all of which evolved for base survival and not accuracy. This, then, is interpreted by various cultural filters for meaning, depending on which culture brought our individualized epistemological schema into being.
In other words; its a posteriori all the way down.
IANAP (I am not a physicist) but... That man annoys the hell out of me. In one of his books he flat out said that empiricism doesn't matter, therefore string theory must be true. How the hell can you earn a PhD and not know about falsifiability (or the lack thereof)? Did he miss the day on Karl Popper?
Sometimes I wonder if a large chunk of modern science is closer to religion than anyone would really guess.
It's a stupid party game, and thus damn enjoyable. You get music (can't lose, there), interaction (its a party, thus the point), and look like a bigger fool when your drunk (party, natch). I don't think anyone has the preconception of actually being a guitar god while playing it.
Play Rock the 80's, and tell me your not having fun?
At my last party is was on rotation with Mario Kart Wii, and Smash Brothers Brawl. Mario Kart isn't for people who fail at NASCAR, and Brawl isn't for aspiring Chuck Norrises, so why should Guitar Hero be for the Jimi Hendixes among us? Its about imagination, and fun. Not about realism or some idiotic version of elitism.
Go look at your favorite flavor of Linux' distro page, and see what the prefered download medium is. Or hit up jamendo, see one of the ways to download music. Hell, go try to patch most popular video games (WoW, I'm looking at you). Torrent is becoming a popular way of content distribution, and not just piracy.
My old college blocked torrent traffic, which made downloading World of Warcraft updates a pain. It was about 12 hours per upload (@12kps, on a T1). Steam uses bit torrent too, which last time I checked was also a legal use, and wildly popular.
The point is that ISPs are blocking traffic, legal or otherwise, with no knowledge of the content they are blocking. Even with this knowledge, it is a questionable affair.
I don't understand how people's friends keep getting viruses and other nasty malware from browsing porn sites. My *friend* has been browsing porn sites for years with never an issue, using Window's no less.
How does other people's friends porn browsing differ from my friends? Not using Firefox? Clicking on monkey's? Downloading executables? I really don't get it.
Then again I just spent a full day cleaning a Vundo infection from this box, thanks to some bad DVD ripping tools my er... *friend* downloaded.
Vundo is really a bloody scourge. It took 5 malware scanners to remove it. Why the hell doesn't Windows let one force delete a file, or at least let me know what process is using it so I can kill it, and then delete the file.
Maybe instead they are informed of what software they wish to use, what OS it operates well with, and thus make a VERY INFORMED decision to not use an OS that would require substantial work to use with their software of choice.
Thank you. Very insightful post.
I'm getting sick of people judging each other on their choice of OS. You pick which one works for you, based on the available software and features, not for some silly nerd status symbol. Windows works for some people, as does Linux an OS X. This doesn't reflect the persons merit, just what OS conforms to their tastes.
A part of it is what your used to. After a certain point the work you put into learning a new OS isn't worth the benefits you might get out of it. Why would I install Linux to do what I can do perfectly fine (and with a huge degree of muscle memory) with OS X, or Windows? I use my computer mostly for writing (text, not code), and some minor graphic design, Linux (or Windows, or OS X) won't make it easier. Sure, I'd be using the same software to write with (OpenOffice), but I'd have a new learning curve, so it would actually be harder. The lack of Photoshop plays a small role too, I don't feel like learning the Gimp when PS CS2 still serves all my needs (and I still feel like I need to make the license fee sodomy worth it).
Even with all the dogging, Vista doesn't make the switch more valid. Vista really isn't nearly as bad as people make it sound. It's underwhelming as an upgrade, but not really worse than XP if you have the specs (which most do, these days). It still isn't worth the steep learning curve to change my OS, and full work flow.
The true competition to Windows isn't linux, not on the desktop. It's Apple, and will be becuase Linux lacks quite a few things that everyday people require.
I'll disagree here. Linux does have most of what people need. I could do everything I do on my current OS X and Vista installs in Linux without any real problem. I'm sure there are a couple proprietary software suites that Linux can't handle easily (though I'm sure a good VM would help), but these are increasingly rare. I'd also argue that Linux' smaller footprint would facilitate productivity slightly more than an equivalent app on OS X or Vista.
I have been pondering trying the new Ubuntu release (when its slightly less buggy), since there is some functionality that Windows is lacking. Oddly, I'm talking about things that make it more Mac like. A free distro is better than updating (read: replacing) my aging Mac Mini. I still run into the learning curve issue though. I'm not a complete Linux novice, so I can only imagine someone switching to Linux for the first times curve.
I generally like Apple design. Yes, it is mostly an aesthetic choice, but a MBP looks nice, while the Dells look... Ugly, but functional. I'm typing this on a HP which is roughly equivalent with a MBP, it has a row of crappy media keys which open their proprietary media player every three seconds since they respond to the softest touch. This is a case were design does start to matter, since it does effect my productivity. I would have paid some extra to have a better designed notebook.
Also OS X. Yes, you can put it on a PC, but with work and effort. OS X adds some value. How much is debatable, but it is clearly better than Vista (what isn't?).
Apple also has been known for their quality support. This has been flagging of late, but the conception is still there.
I would also pay more to NOT have a finger print reader. More ugly, obtrusive, and useless features are not a perk. Especially having it load more crappy software at boot.
Generally I would rather have a MPB over any comparative Windows notebook, even for $100-200 more. I would have gotten one if this thing wasn't $400 off.
Not trying to sound like a Mac fanboy, but a lot of value is completely subjective, and not reducible to base system stats.
I have nothing against Mormons in particular, but I always find it odd when religions copyright (and protect) their material, or try to keep things secret from the general public (or their parishioners). Religion seems to me to about as public domain as one can get.
Mormonism IS weird, but so are all religions to outsiders. All religions adopt a series of rituals and ideas that are by nature alien to all other religions. Granted the LDS seems a bit weirder than most since it doesn't follow some of the direct traditional ties in other Christian faiths, but I still doubt that enforced legal obscurity would help that. If anything openness would be a better practice to remove the "weirdness" barrier.
To be honest I had a lot against Mormons when I was younger (thought you guys were a cult, etc...), until I met and worked with a lot of Mormons in college (Northern AZ), and had some friends convert or marry in. Familiarity is the best solution to most cases of xenophobia. And copyright is generally the enemy of familiarity.
[...]or freedom from hardship as a member of society.
I'd watch positing that right here on slashdot, some of the more extreme libertarians here probably are twitching. I, though, see what your getting at. Its an odd circle, since society feeds us our framework of rights, tells us where we belong in it, and supplies us with the means of protecting, or revoking these rights. It also is the best tool for removing these rights from individuals.
MY big fear comes when we start to value the rights of society (as an entity) above individual rights. I see, now, this isn't what your talking about, but I'm sure you can see how easy it is to red-flag ideas along this line of thought.
the requested rights given to one individual must be weighed against the rights or abilities removed from those they affect, be that effect a person-to-person effect, or a degradation upon society.
I don't think society can really degrade, since it requires a belief in progress. A lot of people thought that the activism of the 60's was destroying society, but the participants saw it the other way, that they were progressing society. The result, things are better in some senses (equality, we view more individuals as "rights worthy"), but some things are much worse (we destroyed the education system). All change is like this, it just changes our priorities, it doesn't necessarily make them better in any objective sense.
and all because we put more value on their "rights" than the rights of the society that has to tolerate and pay for them
First off, I do agree that our school system has gotten weak, and that we don't enforce discipline. Discipline, btw, is the most importance concept in any modern debate involving education. Discipline, means responsibility and consequences, or course, both of which are lessons we are sorely lacking.
When I was in the school system (in the early 90s) far more time was spent telling me that Mexicans and Black people were people too, and that I should respect them, than teaching me math or reading skills (much less "critical thinking" skills), to me this was an unconscionable crime, with the latter the former is obvious, with the former your nothing more than a tolerant, but illiterate, imbecile.
I take affront, though, at your last line. The rights of individuals always trump society, unless those rights conflict with the rights of other individuals. Society, as such, has no rights, it is merely a collective of individuals. Holding society above individuals is the basis of all tyrannies and atrocities.
Thank you for your service. The trolls here don't seem to understand that they probably wouldn't have the freedom to post offensive jokes were it not for you and your ilk.
If we were talking about WWII veterans, then I would agree (with proper props to the Russians and British as well). But Iraq has nothing to do with anyone's freedom to troll/. I still respect the military, and think that they are do a terrible and thankless job. But I don't like this old haw.
How is any of our current wars protecting our freedom? Actually, how has any war since WWII been about protecting our freedom? Iraq is about as useful as Vietnam, and perhaps more harmful in the long run. Afghanistan was a "just" war, but it still has nothing to do with protecting my freedom. This is just quasi-patriotic rhetoric, lacking substance.
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean "I don't support our troops", so don't try that line either. We can both support and be honest, can't we?
Not going to get into the pro/anti war flamewar here... but;
Please do everyone a favor and learn the difference between the military, an instrument of national power, and the GOVERNMENT that wields it. If you want to meet a person who abhors war, talk to a soldier.
We have a volunteer armed forces now. Meaning everyone there CHOSE to be there. I do feel bad for all those kids who joined in the 90's for the GI Bill benefits, and ended up in a silly war, but its the military, it exists to throw undereducated young people at whatever country our pols deem hip at the moment, so they should have seen it coming. Any profession that focuses on gun training probably isn't going to be safe and fun. You choose to be a tool, don't bitch about it.
Second, ex-soldiers are the most pro-war people I know. Even if they were pacifist-like before enlisting. The closer to combat you get, the more pro-war you have to be. It's called cognitive dissonance. They invested hugely in the process, thus their minds must make it justified.
The closest to anti-War I've seen a recent veteran is the fatalism of PTSD.
Any government that requires restricting outside, contradictory, and/or foreign views is probably not viable, or good for the people living under it. In China the ubiquitous censorship even removes the ability to even form a revolt sufficiently violent to enforce the people's will upon "their" government.
Also, we must remember that the modern version of China as a monolithic entity is really new. China has generally been 3 or 4 warring, or tensely, peaceful states, and not the monolithic juggernaut it is today. China has never been as stable as we all seem to think it has been.
How you say their officials are chosen might sound very good on paper. But this ignores the fact that the Party is dripping with corruption, and crony-ism. This idea of testing is largely academic. And doesn't change the fact that people should be allowed to see alternative views, and choose their actions accordingly, and their government. If people don't have a choice, no matter what other merits of the system, then the government is unjust.
Our democracy definitely isn't perfect (mostly do to our own ignorance and lack of education, or emphasis on it). But it is infinitely better than none at all. Just because something is flawed, does not make it worse than more flawed implementations.
I'm guessing your either American, or living in another Western democracy. So if you could choose to remove the vote completely for more skilled administrators, would you? Even if it meant that you loose all control, and are forced to trust the politicos and their agendas? Even if it meant we become communists or a theocracy? It isn't worth the trade-off.
I perfectly understand that oil is a losing game. Though I think "oil or solar" is a bit of a false dichotomy, since there are other alternatives (*cough* nuclear *cough*) that have better viability than solar does at the moment.
I'm not in favor of paving over 40% of ANYBODY'S backyard, I just happen to be (like most) fond of my local ecosystem. And I get sick of the "desert = barren wasteland" idiocy. Just because it isn't full of our species two favorite landscape decorations, grass and trees, doesn't mean it isn't a beautiful, essential, and thriving ecosystem.
I'd would, however, be a fan of solar farms by urban centers, small and distributed as to lessen the ecological impact. Also many of our cities have tons of wasted "sky space" which could be happily paneled over, to the benefit of private enterprise and the general environment. Couple this with a replacing 25% of our fossil fuel reactors with Fast Neutron Breeders, or some other multipass recycling reactor, and we have a viable energy plan.
NIMBY still has a role though, since Yucca Mountain is a necessity, even if FNB reactors produce less, and shorter lived, wastes. This, on the bright side, would condense the damage by our energy needs to a very small underground bit (minimal ecosystem damage), and would allow us to reprocess all of that plutonium that the Cold Warriors left sitting around to no ends into useful energy.
[...]and I wish Google was allowed to interpret the censorship rules in the US the same way they do in China.
From my experience they do. Sometimes you run across the "Chilling Effects" notice at the bottom of you result, with the text that says something to the effect of "someone forced us to remove something, here is all the info". A savvy searcher can read the Chilling Effects page, and see who called for the censorship, and have some idea that something is missing.
While this solution isn't optimal (optimal being no censorship at all), it is better than just removing information and not telling anyone. At least it makes the user aware that someone doesn't want them to know something.
This is a decent ethical middle ground. They don't have to do this, but do.
I don't know if the situation is the same in China though. Do they still have a blurb saying "we're not allowed to tell you about this because your government doesn't want you to know"?
Slashdot Mirror
That said, at some point these accidental features might become useful as based on the whim of the environment, and then will be actively selected for. Or visa versa, of course.
The insightful jest here is that these possibly (though doubtfully) useless accidental features have become useful.
Also a lot of people refuse to mod +1 funny, since it doesn't actually benefit the poster's karma in any way. Insightful at least gives them something.
Just wait until the Star Wars Trek... Or was it the Star Trek Wars?
Oh god, the Nerd/Dork/Geek argument. We always went with nerds being unwashed, antisocial geniuses who small vaguely like cheese, and somehow manage to reference Yoda, and differential equations in every utterance. Dorks are just like nerds, but dumber. And geeks are the swashbuckling generalists who get all the chicks (er...) because they have some modicum of social skills, while still knowing their swallows apart.
By your jargon though, there still is a deep relation between nerds and dorks, since both of them are "systems" people. D&D is just another complex system to play with, just like math, code, and circuits. As is, oddly, the various nerd friendly mythologies. Both groups, by your classification, are equally likely to get the chicks... Not very. Neither math nor D&D impress many of the chicks I know.
So where does arguing over the semantics of nerdery put one?
I call shenanigans! It's "bowl", not "play bowling"... You really play nethack in a dark basement, admit it.
I'm not a Mac fanboy (typing this on a Vista laptop, while installing Ubuntu, and listening to music on my Mac Mini media box), but you really should try some of the more modern iterations of OS X. 2002 was 10.2, I think, which was pretty damn bad, but much better than OS 8 or 9. 10.4 is pretty solid, once you get used to it, 10.5 is... not big enough an upgrade to bother spending $150 for (the Vista of Apple). The only beef I have is that you can't really customize it, it does just work, but only in one way.
The various *nix OSs are getting there (with KDE 4, and whatever Gnome is on now), but they still have a hobbiest look to them. And often completely customizing my OS is somewhat a pain. Too many choices can sometimes be a bad thing (ala cognitive dissonance).
Personally I'd put OS X and XP on the same level, followed by Vista, then closely followed by your favorite *nix window manager. Not by a very large spread, though. Since your choice of OS should really meet your needs, and therefore there is no objective standard.
The mini was my main machine until I found a cheap Vista laptop to play with (which is now my internet and work machine), the Mac is better at media (IMO) and thus its the photo, music, and creative work machine. The linux install is (right now) just a toy with aspirations of taking over Vista thanks to a virus experience, and its wonky file permissions.
But are they pretty IN pink... /shudder
Devil's advocate mode:
In a solipsist reality (MY reality), you can't prove the existence of others, therefore verification from without is impossible. When you present evidence from outside my POV, I can easily claim I made you up, AND the information you represent. Thus I preserve my world-view without any real conflict with it.
Its crap. I know.
Er... I've been though the philosophy ringer, so let me try...
Your base premise "god is..." is not fundamental, making us again try to prove the validity, or lack of, of that premise. If your primary premise is not true, the whole argument dies.
Also your buying into Berkeley. Is the universe around when no one is aware of it? If I close my eyes, the universe goes away (via my lack of awareness). Therefore someone must be watching all the time. Therefore God must exist.
How can an entity be "self awareness" itself? Wouldn't it have to be something to be aware of itself? There is no "it" there, just a reductio.
5. All which is not self aware, is not real, it's junk information, it's noise, it's fake, it's illusion
Leibniz, I thought you died. Did you have to read the Monadology yet? Its pretty close to what your talking about. Its one of the last exercises in pure idealistic metaphysics, completely lacking in good old-fashioned, empiricism. Just because you devise a coherent system, does not mean it is true, you need to found it in something external to itself to grant it any penumbra of validity.
You also verge a bit on solipsism. Can you be certain I am aware? If not, how can you be certain of anything external of the self? And if all the rocks, rivers, neutrons, quarks, and puppies, are not aware, and just illusions, where is the source in the commonality of appearance between your view and that of others (barring said solipsism). There must then be an objective basis of these "illusions" (a Kantian, or phenomenological thing-in-itself say), and thus they are not illusions, but only the improperly understood impressions that they are.
In my honest opinion, your confusing faulty epistemology with metaphysics. The absence of truth is not proof of a true absence, to muddle a cliche to my egotistical purposes.
Agreed. Thats like saying an astronomer's opinion means nothing regarding astrology. If you're studying "the philosophy of religion", you've already decided on a camp.
In some cases, yes, in some no. I took a philosophy of religion class from a man who who completely ambiguous on his own views (reading his book, I think he may have been a crypto-catholic). About half the class was taking it just for seminary, the other half was roughly split between agnostics and atheists (the philosophy majors fit into both of these equally).
The class was basically a discussion of the merits of the logic of the various "proofs" of gods existence, and a critique of of various philosophical views on religion. It didn't move one down any particular path.
I call pedantic shenanigans!
This unapproximated reality is actually just another approximation of the unaccessible Kantian numina intrepreted by various sensory inputs (and their limitations), and obscure and imperfect neural pathways, all of which evolved for base survival and not accuracy. This, then, is interpreted by various cultural filters for meaning, depending on which culture brought our individualized epistemological schema into being.
In other words; its a posteriori all the way down.
IANAP (I am not a physicist) but... That man annoys the hell out of me. In one of his books he flat out said that empiricism doesn't matter, therefore string theory must be true. How the hell can you earn a PhD and not know about falsifiability (or the lack thereof)? Did he miss the day on Karl Popper?
Sometimes I wonder if a large chunk of modern science is closer to religion than anyone would really guess.
It's a stupid party game, and thus damn enjoyable. You get music (can't lose, there), interaction (its a party, thus the point), and look like a bigger fool when your drunk (party, natch). I don't think anyone has the preconception of actually being a guitar god while playing it.
Play Rock the 80's, and tell me your not having fun?
At my last party is was on rotation with Mario Kart Wii, and Smash Brothers Brawl. Mario Kart isn't for people who fail at NASCAR, and Brawl isn't for aspiring Chuck Norrises, so why should Guitar Hero be for the Jimi Hendixes among us? Its about imagination, and fun. Not about realism or some idiotic version of elitism.
Learn to have fun.
Er... torrent != piracy.
Go look at your favorite flavor of Linux' distro page, and see what the prefered download medium is. Or hit up jamendo, see one of the ways to download music. Hell, go try to patch most popular video games (WoW, I'm looking at you). Torrent is becoming a popular way of content distribution, and not just piracy.
My old college blocked torrent traffic, which made downloading World of Warcraft updates a pain. It was about 12 hours per upload (@12kps, on a T1). Steam uses bit torrent too, which last time I checked was also a legal use, and wildly popular.
The point is that ISPs are blocking traffic, legal or otherwise, with no knowledge of the content they are blocking. Even with this knowledge, it is a questionable affair.
I don't understand how people's friends keep getting viruses and other nasty malware from browsing porn sites. My *friend* has been browsing porn sites for years with never an issue, using Window's no less.
How does other people's friends porn browsing differ from my friends? Not using Firefox? Clicking on monkey's? Downloading executables? I really don't get it.
Then again I just spent a full day cleaning a Vundo infection from this box, thanks to some bad DVD ripping tools my er... *friend* downloaded.
Vundo is really a bloody scourge. It took 5 malware scanners to remove it. Why the hell doesn't Windows let one force delete a file, or at least let me know what process is using it so I can kill it, and then delete the file.
Maybe instead they are informed of what software they wish to use, what OS it operates well with, and thus make a VERY INFORMED decision to not use an OS that would require substantial work to use with their software of choice.
Thank you. Very insightful post.
I'm getting sick of people judging each other on their choice of OS. You pick which one works for you, based on the available software and features, not for some silly nerd status symbol. Windows works for some people, as does Linux an OS X. This doesn't reflect the persons merit, just what OS conforms to their tastes.
A part of it is what your used to. After a certain point the work you put into learning a new OS isn't worth the benefits you might get out of it. Why would I install Linux to do what I can do perfectly fine (and with a huge degree of muscle memory) with OS X, or Windows? I use my computer mostly for writing (text, not code), and some minor graphic design, Linux (or Windows, or OS X) won't make it easier. Sure, I'd be using the same software to write with (OpenOffice), but I'd have a new learning curve, so it would actually be harder. The lack of Photoshop plays a small role too, I don't feel like learning the Gimp when PS CS2 still serves all my needs (and I still feel like I need to make the license fee sodomy worth it).
Even with all the dogging, Vista doesn't make the switch more valid. Vista really isn't nearly as bad as people make it sound. It's underwhelming as an upgrade, but not really worse than XP if you have the specs (which most do, these days). It still isn't worth the steep learning curve to change my OS, and full work flow.
The true competition to Windows isn't linux, not on the desktop. It's Apple, and will be becuase Linux lacks quite a few things that everyday people require.
I'll disagree here. Linux does have most of what people need. I could do everything I do on my current OS X and Vista installs in Linux without any real problem. I'm sure there are a couple proprietary software suites that Linux can't handle easily (though I'm sure a good VM would help), but these are increasingly rare. I'd also argue that Linux' smaller footprint would facilitate productivity slightly more than an equivalent app on OS X or Vista.
I have been pondering trying the new Ubuntu release (when its slightly less buggy), since there is some functionality that Windows is lacking. Oddly, I'm talking about things that make it more Mac like. A free distro is better than updating (read: replacing) my aging Mac Mini. I still run into the learning curve issue though. I'm not a complete Linux novice, so I can only imagine someone switching to Linux for the first times curve.
Sorry for the rambling rant.
Valid, but ignoring subjective factors.
I generally like Apple design. Yes, it is mostly an aesthetic choice, but a MBP looks nice, while the Dells look... Ugly, but functional. I'm typing this on a HP which is roughly equivalent with a MBP, it has a row of crappy media keys which open their proprietary media player every three seconds since they respond to the softest touch. This is a case were design does start to matter, since it does effect my productivity. I would have paid some extra to have a better designed notebook.
Also OS X. Yes, you can put it on a PC, but with work and effort. OS X adds some value. How much is debatable, but it is clearly better than Vista (what isn't?).
Apple also has been known for their quality support. This has been flagging of late, but the conception is still there.
I would also pay more to NOT have a finger print reader. More ugly, obtrusive, and useless features are not a perk. Especially having it load more crappy software at boot.
Generally I would rather have a MPB over any comparative Windows notebook, even for $100-200 more. I would have gotten one if this thing wasn't $400 off.
Not trying to sound like a Mac fanboy, but a lot of value is completely subjective, and not reducible to base system stats.
I have nothing against Mormons in particular, but I always find it odd when religions copyright (and protect) their material, or try to keep things secret from the general public (or their parishioners). Religion seems to me to about as public domain as one can get.
Mormonism IS weird, but so are all religions to outsiders. All religions adopt a series of rituals and ideas that are by nature alien to all other religions. Granted the LDS seems a bit weirder than most since it doesn't follow some of the direct traditional ties in other Christian faiths, but I still doubt that enforced legal obscurity would help that. If anything openness would be a better practice to remove the "weirdness" barrier.
To be honest I had a lot against Mormons when I was younger (thought you guys were a cult, etc...), until I met and worked with a lot of Mormons in college (Northern AZ), and had some friends convert or marry in. Familiarity is the best solution to most cases of xenophobia. And copyright is generally the enemy of familiarity.
[...]or freedom from hardship as a member of society.
I'd watch positing that right here on slashdot, some of the more extreme libertarians here probably are twitching. I, though, see what your getting at. Its an odd circle, since society feeds us our framework of rights, tells us where we belong in it, and supplies us with the means of protecting, or revoking these rights. It also is the best tool for removing these rights from individuals.
MY big fear comes when we start to value the rights of society (as an entity) above individual rights. I see, now, this isn't what your talking about, but I'm sure you can see how easy it is to red-flag ideas along this line of thought.
the requested rights given to one individual must be weighed against the rights or abilities removed from those they affect, be that effect a person-to-person effect, or a degradation upon society.
I don't think society can really degrade, since it requires a belief in progress. A lot of people thought that the activism of the 60's was destroying society, but the participants saw it the other way, that they were progressing society. The result, things are better in some senses (equality, we view more individuals as "rights worthy"), but some things are much worse (we destroyed the education system). All change is like this, it just changes our priorities, it doesn't necessarily make them better in any objective sense.
and all because we put more value on their "rights" than the rights of the society that has to tolerate and pay for them
First off, I do agree that our school system has gotten weak, and that we don't enforce discipline. Discipline, btw, is the most importance concept in any modern debate involving education. Discipline, means responsibility and consequences, or course, both of which are lessons we are sorely lacking.
When I was in the school system (in the early 90s) far more time was spent telling me that Mexicans and Black people were people too, and that I should respect them, than teaching me math or reading skills (much less "critical thinking" skills), to me this was an unconscionable crime, with the latter the former is obvious, with the former your nothing more than a tolerant, but illiterate, imbecile.
I take affront, though, at your last line. The rights of individuals always trump society, unless those rights conflict with the rights of other individuals. Society, as such, has no rights, it is merely a collective of individuals. Holding society above individuals is the basis of all tyrannies and atrocities.
Just a little nit-pick.
Thank you for your service. The trolls here don't seem to understand that they probably wouldn't have the freedom to post offensive jokes were it not for you and your ilk.
/. I still respect the military, and think that they are do a terrible and thankless job. But I don't like this old haw.
If we were talking about WWII veterans, then I would agree (with proper props to the Russians and British as well). But Iraq has nothing to do with anyone's freedom to troll
How is any of our current wars protecting our freedom? Actually, how has any war since WWII been about protecting our freedom? Iraq is about as useful as Vietnam, and perhaps more harmful in the long run. Afghanistan was a "just" war, but it still has nothing to do with protecting my freedom. This is just quasi-patriotic rhetoric, lacking substance.
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean "I don't support our troops", so don't try that line either. We can both support and be honest, can't we?
Not going to get into the pro/anti war flamewar here... but;
Please do everyone a favor and learn the difference between the military, an instrument of national power, and the GOVERNMENT that wields it. If you want to meet a person who abhors war, talk to a soldier.
We have a volunteer armed forces now. Meaning everyone there CHOSE to be there. I do feel bad for all those kids who joined in the 90's for the GI Bill benefits, and ended up in a silly war, but its the military, it exists to throw undereducated young people at whatever country our pols deem hip at the moment, so they should have seen it coming. Any profession that focuses on gun training probably isn't going to be safe and fun. You choose to be a tool, don't bitch about it.
Second, ex-soldiers are the most pro-war people I know. Even if they were pacifist-like before enlisting. The closer to combat you get, the more pro-war you have to be. It's called cognitive dissonance. They invested hugely in the process, thus their minds must make it justified.
The closest to anti-War I've seen a recent veteran is the fatalism of PTSD.
Any government that requires restricting outside, contradictory, and/or foreign views is probably not viable, or good for the people living under it. In China the ubiquitous censorship even removes the ability to even form a revolt sufficiently violent to enforce the people's will upon "their" government.
Also, we must remember that the modern version of China as a monolithic entity is really new. China has generally been 3 or 4 warring, or tensely, peaceful states, and not the monolithic juggernaut it is today. China has never been as stable as we all seem to think it has been.
How you say their officials are chosen might sound very good on paper. But this ignores the fact that the Party is dripping with corruption, and crony-ism. This idea of testing is largely academic. And doesn't change the fact that people should be allowed to see alternative views, and choose their actions accordingly, and their government. If people don't have a choice, no matter what other merits of the system, then the government is unjust.
Our democracy definitely isn't perfect (mostly do to our own ignorance and lack of education, or emphasis on it). But it is infinitely better than none at all. Just because something is flawed, does not make it worse than more flawed implementations.
I'm guessing your either American, or living in another Western democracy. So if you could choose to remove the vote completely for more skilled administrators, would you? Even if it meant that you loose all control, and are forced to trust the politicos and their agendas? Even if it meant we become communists or a theocracy? It isn't worth the trade-off.
I perfectly understand that oil is a losing game. Though I think "oil or solar" is a bit of a false dichotomy, since there are other alternatives (*cough* nuclear *cough*) that have better viability than solar does at the moment.
I'm not in favor of paving over 40% of ANYBODY'S backyard, I just happen to be (like most) fond of my local ecosystem. And I get sick of the "desert = barren wasteland" idiocy. Just because it isn't full of our species two favorite landscape decorations, grass and trees, doesn't mean it isn't a beautiful, essential, and thriving ecosystem.
I'd would, however, be a fan of solar farms by urban centers, small and distributed as to lessen the ecological impact. Also many of our cities have tons of wasted "sky space" which could be happily paneled over, to the benefit of private enterprise and the general environment. Couple this with a replacing 25% of our fossil fuel reactors with Fast Neutron Breeders, or some other multipass recycling reactor, and we have a viable energy plan.
NIMBY still has a role though, since Yucca Mountain is a necessity, even if FNB reactors produce less, and shorter lived, wastes. This, on the bright side, would condense the damage by our energy needs to a very small underground bit (minimal ecosystem damage), and would allow us to reprocess all of that plutonium that the Cold Warriors left sitting around to no ends into useful energy.
He would never need over 666k?
[...]and I wish Google was allowed to interpret the censorship rules in the US the same way they do in China.
From my experience they do. Sometimes you run across the "Chilling Effects" notice at the bottom of you result, with the text that says something to the effect of "someone forced us to remove something, here is all the info". A savvy searcher can read the Chilling Effects page, and see who called for the censorship, and have some idea that something is missing.
While this solution isn't optimal (optimal being no censorship at all), it is better than just removing information and not telling anyone. At least it makes the user aware that someone doesn't want them to know something.
This is a decent ethical middle ground. They don't have to do this, but do.
I don't know if the situation is the same in China though. Do they still have a blurb saying "we're not allowed to tell you about this because your government doesn't want you to know"?