Check out.. http://www.issues2000.org/ Both want out of war on drugs. Both want to stop policing the world, and offensive military. Both want to stop corporate welfare. About the biggest diffrences they have are on corporations. Libertarians are economic anarchists. The economy is like an ecology, if you allow people to bring in foriegn animals or insects (unregulated), they can destroy crops and fields and ruin the ecology. If you don't regulate trade between economies (like ecologies) then you will ruin the economy. That is things get ruined and then the agents (animals or businesses) in that environment will adapt and eventually stabilize, but only after a lot of problems occure, over population and over consumption. World trade should be eased in to, so that it does not kill our economy, not completely let to go wild or we risk another depression. Libertarians also don't want corporations to have much responsibility, despite the fact that corporations are like governments themselves, and if allowed to become dominate we could all be stuck in a corporate monopoly.
I think there are some ideas in common between Libertarians and Greens, but they are for different reasons. Libertarians don't believe in the vast wealth and power of some corporations because they hinder the individual's freedom to become vastly wealthy and powerful himself. I think Greens don't believe in the vast wealth and power of corporations explicitly because vast wealth and power gaps are inherently undemocratic and socially unhealthy in general (to paraphrase the quote: "you can have vast concentrations of wealth and power, or you can have democracy; you can't have both").
And again, on drugs, Libertarians think that the government should stop telling citizens what they can and can't use because it restricts their freedom. The Green perspective is that government should stop the war on drugs, not just because people have some right to get high, but because it is fundamentally a war against *people*, which is helping *nobody* (regardless of the freedom issues). Look...these holy "freedoms" and "rights" we have only exist because someone is there to stop somebody else from infringing on them. Freedom comes from restriction. I think we should have as little restriction as possible to maximize the cost/benefit equation...but I'm not so naive to think that totally abolishing any type of government or regulation or arbitrating entity will land us in some wonderful fantasy land. Without *some* sort of government we are back in the "natural" state that we invented up government to avoid in the first place!
So, yes I think that Libertarians and Greens share some goals, but I think they do for different reasons. I'm not here to run down Libertarianism. I think it is a worthy philosophy. Certainly better than the business-as-usual Democrats and Republicans. I think we have some decent third party choices here. My pick is the Green party. I don't think there is any reason to bicker over the differences of these parties, as they are already both vastly different and superior choices to the status-quo parties.
I don't know actually. Perhaps I should have said "arbitrarily differential pricing". For instance, I don't think it is wrong for insurance agencies to charge for different age ranges and car models. That's plain sense - it's more risk for them. However, something like Amazon charging *arbitrarily* different prices, for no other reason than to gouge, doesn't seem to have much ethical grounds (yeah, ok, they said it was a "test"...hopefully it doesn't become their modus operandi).
I don't know actually. Perhaps I should have said "arbitrarily differential pricing". For instance, I don't think it is wrong for insurance agencies to charge for different age ranges and car models. That's plain sense - it's more risk for them. However, something like Amazon charging *arbitrarily* different prices, for no other reason than to gouge, doesn't seem to have much ethical grounds (yeah, ok, they said it was a "test"...hopefully it doesn't become their modus operandi).
Yes I totally agree. I have a pet theory that as communications technology advances at an increasingly feverish pace, that while our communication *connections* and channels of data will go up, their *meaning* will go down in proportion. Since phones and email, each individual probably comes into contact with, say, 10 or 20 times the number of people he/she would otherwise...but count on your fingers those you really have rich meaningful *relationships* with. Technology is great, but humans were just not designed for this. We were designed for a clan-sized population (ever wonder why everybody has to be so damn proud about something? Geek Pride...eh?). I think that as the industrial age commodified our bodies, the "information" age is commodifying our minds and hearts and souls (if you allow me to get mushy). I mean, it almost seems noble to work physically all day and come back to a humble abode with a plain meal, while it seems hollow to drive out in your nice car, pick up a latte, browse through the latest fluffy tech mag, and spend 8-12 hours of your day in front of a screen shooting electrons at your face.
So sure, on the surface, I think this technology is some hot shit. I can download data on a remote server and have it update my palm pilot so I can track my stock quotes while I'm on the john. *Who the hell cares!*
I think in the "post-modern" (yes overly abused) world, programming must be one of the most nihilistic occupations. You are paid to sit and push bits around.
Yeah I'm probably burnt out. So where's my disability check?
Well, everybody has to create "meaning" in their life (you can think this is rubbish but your body is very stubborn about this). I guess my "meaning" was getting interested and active in politics. To perhaps help fix a world full of injustices. To do something meaningful. Hell, maybe I won't make a difference to the world...but at least it will make a difference to me. So you can pretty much figure out my sig.
Well, it doesn't look like *barf*. It actually looks decent, except for the garish logo and I-wannabe-an-ibook handle. Oh wait, remove those, and it just looks like a normal laptop.
Ok, IANAPhysicist (although I wanted to be;), but would a large amount of carbon dioxide make feasible the possibility of creating an atmosphere on Mars? Or is the gravity just too low? I thought CO2, as it behaves here on earth in the green-house effect, can do the same in other environments, trapping humidity, heat, and other gasses. Is this right? If so, it would be cool if they just tapped the CO2 "wells" to create an instant atmosphere;)
What's the problem here? If you don't like it, don't shop there.
Well, except that I think differential pricing is illegal. If it isn't, it is at least unethical.
And no, not everything can be solved by "if you don't like it, don't shop there". Hey, maybe I don't like the practices of Archer Daniels Midland, or Monsanto. Try and buy food that *hasn't* passed through their hands. You pretty much can't. How can you tell? You can't use that excuse against monopolies. And while there are many corporations out there, many are equally as bad as the others, so there is effectively no "choice" to be made.
It's a crime that corporations are treated as individuals under law, because in many cases they don't have to hold up to their responsibilities and are unnaccountable for their actions. Yes corporations and businesses should be allowed to exist. But it should *also* be understood that a corporate charter is a mandate given on the good graces of the hosting society, which can pull it when the corporation does not behave well.
And for the record, I sympathize with many of the Libertarian ideas, but think that "pure" libertarianism verges on irresponsibility. I believe government can and should play a positive role in providing fundamental services to citizens, if it is architected to resist corruption, and open to a real democracy. I feel the Green party, and Nader's candidacy, is the best of many worlds, by mixing some good libertarian ideas, a passion for social justice, and a good helping of civic responsibility and "daily democracy". That's why I'm voting for Nader.
I agree with many of your sentiments. The "two party" system is a crock. The two "major" candidates are corporate clones of slightly different flavors. I also agree with a lot of the Libertarian philosophy, however, I believe being a pure libertarian verges on plain irresponsibility. I believe government can and should play a positive role in providing certain fundamental services to citizens, if we architect the system to resist corruption. Therefore I am voting for Mr. Nader of the Green party. To me he has many of the pluses of the libertarian ideals, plus the added bonus of a passion for social justice, which this world and country has far too little of.
But in general, to all those undecideds, independents, and progressives out there, I say: Please, take a moment, analyse the third party candidates, and ask yourself who you really trust and who you would really like in office. Elections are not horse-races or soda tasting contests; you should vote your conscience. For anybody that dissuades you from voting on your conscience on the basis that the candidate "doesn't have a chance", you should immediately discard their persuasions - apparently *they* have already given up and have settled for the lesser of two evils.
(and some facts to nudge you: 1) the election is decided not by popular vote, but by the electoral college. In all but a handful of battleground states, you can vote "freely" for a third party. While it may not have a large effect on who eventually carries that state, it will send a message, and will help build your third party so that *next* time, we can't be ignored; 2) for those liberals or conservatives out there that think that the opposing major candidate will go against your opinions as far as abortion and the supreme court: since abortion was instituted, the most liberal judges were appointed by conservative administrations, and conservative judges by liberal administrations...don't fall into their scare tactic)
Damn, be glad you are hearing from a real *human being* instead of getting some impersonal auto-generated form letter that talks about "performance issues". Mr. Young is taking a risk, putty his neck on the line, and inviting all sorts of personal criticism, to address Red Hat's critics directly. I think this is admirable.
News flash: recent studies reveal politicians are source of juvenile violence. In a test group, violence rates apparently surged due to presence of politicians, while the control group continued its steady decline in violence. Curiosly enough, violence immediately disappeared, AND returned to the predicted lower rate compensating for time, when the presence of politicians was removed.
Studies are currently underway to see if politicians have any affect on cancer rates.
Yes, we need better parents. But the issue is even larger. We have bad parents because this society makes it *easy* to be bad parents. Hey, TV can educate your child, tell them what to eat and wear, what to listen to, how to talk and behave...what are parents *for*? I think while we put a heavy burden on parents we also have to realize we need to foster a society which makes it easier to be a good parent. Our society is way too corporatized and consumerized. Think of a classic rock song. Chances are it's been co-opted to sell you sugar water or an automobile. Yes, it's the fault of the population for wanting what corporations provide...but it is at least as much a fault of the corporations for propagandizing our society into consumer herd mentality. There is no black and white solution. There is no button we can push to fix everything at once. The problem has to be tackled from all sides. Parents need to involve themselves more in their children's lives, and hell, in general their *own* lives away from work. We also need to fight the meme pollution with awareness raising and education, and supporting unbiased public broadcasting and radio.
GWB:...I talked to my little brother, Jeb -- I haven't told this to many people. But he's the governor of -- I shouldn't call him my little brother -- my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas...
JIM LEHRER: Florida.
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Florida. The state of the Florida. The night before...
I guess he meant it when he said "I know I'm ready for the job, but if not, that's just the way it goes".
A more complete hosts file is at: http://www.smartin-designs.com/
Add to this a miniscule http server in C I wrote (ask and it's yours), which returns a 1x1 pixel transparent GIF, and you're set. The web looks a *lot* better.
Oh, yeah, and of course, remap www.nytimes.com to partners.nytimes.com (get the IP).;)
I am aware. I'm also aware that a lot of the roots of "western" civilization are in turn rooted in arabic civilizations, art and science, and various other sources. Hell, Christianity was a Middle East export (despite the pale white "pure" Jesus we have come to know). But nevertheless we are still surprised and amazed when we stumble upon something we would never before have believed could be made by such primitive people. Because, after all, new is better, and old is stupid.
I probably have to get that Pawsense thing. I come home and my computer is online and the cat is sleeping in the computer chair. Verrry suspicious. They also love "helping" to play games.
So Hemos and Taco are saying that karma is not "worth"...that it is some factor to do with how good a moderator you are. Well, I haven't moderated in a long time, but my karma still fluctuates, so that seems to blow that theory away. The fact is, that if you want to foster a decent disussion community, you have to give people *incentive* to post insightfully. My karma was 150 before this cap (yeah, I'll brag, I was proud). But now because of the cap it doesn't *matter* what I post...it will eventually radioactively decay back down. So I'm ending up posting less valuable, off-the cuff remarks. Because there is no incentive NOT to. It's sort of like saying if you behave bad we'll smack you. But if you behave good, we'll also smack you. So...what're you going to do?
Perhaps you guys (Taco/Hemos) don't think karma is the correct measure of worth. Well, come up with one! Or (the valuable) people will just migrate to kuro5hin or other weblogs which actually reward their contributions. Saying that people who worry about karma should "get a life" is so inflammatory. Hey, wake up! This whole Open Source geek thing is all about ego feeding! Perhaps all those Linux hackers should just "get a life" instead of looking for peer esteem, right? Sheesh. So throw some ego crumbs to those who *make* your site guys...or Slashdot will just end up another web has-been.
More fodder for my argument that we were not as dumb as the western tradition would like us to believe we are. Humans built pyramids, built fantastic cities, great works of art and engineering. Sure, they didn't have palm pilots that us clever, obviously more advanced homo sapiens have, but that doesn't mean they were *dumb*. It seems like every year some archeologist finds some *amazing* thing that we would *never* believe was possible to ancient humans (how about that frozen medicine man from Italy, eh?). It's a sort of arrogance. As if all of our great advancements are the natural outcome of the superior "western" civilized mind.
I saw this on TV, and they were trying to make a big deal about it. I was thinking, "yeah, so why is this news?" They had a sound bite of some alarmist ethicist who was saying this is a slippery slope to designer babies. Bullocks. If you were planning to have a child anyway (which they were), why not select an egg/embryo who could help save a child you already have? This is a fabricated "issue".
And where are the anti-abortionists claiming that the discarded eggs/embryos where actually "aborted" and murdered? My god they murdered those poor unborn unicellular children!
Ok, as applications, as computing in general, becomes more distributed, I see this type of "Grand Unification" stuff going on. We are no longer in a world of standalone, network independent applications. We're not even in simple client server. As Sun puts it, "the network is the computer", We are in a many to many world, many clients, many servers, many pieces of code which are both, in an arbitrarily teired environment.
I'm a full-time Java programmer, so I think J2EE is an excellent "unification". You have everything you need: full featured, cross-platform applications, RPC via RMI or CORBA, "mobile code" via serialization and reconstitution on the other side, full-blown web application support, (pretty) seamless database connectivity, message-oriented middleware, network-aware device capability, Java on portable or embedded devices, myriad well-written libraries and projects under review for addition (generalized preferences, logging, assertions...)...it just goes on and on. Sun's one fault, if it can be considered that, which Microsoft seems to be trying to take care of, is support for multiple languages *within* the VM. Well, technically there is nothing stopping you from writing a compiler for a language that compiles to Java bytecode, but the VM spec and the Java language spec are in some parts interdependent. But I can't blame Sun too much for this...after all, their ability to control Java is what has brought us these solid standards and libraries.
Here is where I think.NET matters: migrating a humongous amount of legacy code to this new unified network-centric world, making this migration as painless as possible for C/C++, MSVC, and VB heads, and those already sunk to the waist in other Microsoft legacy crap. If you're in a Microsoft-oriented world, well, yeah,.NET is some hot sh*t because it now allows you to join everybody else. On the other hand, if you are starting from scratch building some core enterprise infrastructure, I'd go with J2EE. It supports (embraces but doesn't extend or extinguish!) pretty much every important standard out there, and is quick to support new ones (e.g., XML). And there is a lot of Open Source support for Java-oriented stuff (Apache's Java and Jakarta umbrella projects for instance).
Ok, I suppose that's enough of a plug from me. I just wanted to give the perspective of someone who is already where Microsoft wants us to go tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there are some ideas in common between Libertarians and Greens, but they are for different reasons. Libertarians don't believe in the vast wealth and power of some corporations because they hinder the individual's freedom to become vastly wealthy and powerful himself. I think Greens don't believe in the vast wealth and power of corporations explicitly because vast wealth and power gaps are inherently undemocratic and socially unhealthy in general (to paraphrase the quote: "you can have vast concentrations of wealth and power, or you can have democracy; you can't have both").
And again, on drugs, Libertarians think that the government should stop telling citizens what they can and can't use because it restricts their freedom. The Green perspective is that government should stop the war on drugs, not just because people have some right to get high, but because it is fundamentally a war against *people*, which is helping *nobody* (regardless of the freedom issues). Look...these holy "freedoms" and "rights" we have only exist because someone is there to stop somebody else from infringing on them. Freedom comes from restriction. I think we should have as little restriction as possible to maximize the cost/benefit equation...but I'm not so naive to think that totally abolishing any type of government or regulation or arbitrating entity will land us in some wonderful fantasy land. Without *some* sort of government we are back in the "natural" state that we invented up government to avoid in the first place!
So, yes I think that Libertarians and Greens share some goals, but I think they do for different reasons. I'm not here to run down Libertarianism. I think it is a worthy philosophy. Certainly better than the business-as-usual Democrats and Republicans. I think we have some decent third party choices here. My pick is the Green party. I don't think there is any reason to bicker over the differences of these parties, as they are already both vastly different and superior choices to the status-quo parties.
I'll repost this:
I don't know actually. Perhaps I should have said "arbitrarily differential pricing". For instance, I don't think it is wrong for insurance agencies to charge for different age ranges and car models. That's plain sense - it's more risk for them. However, something like Amazon charging *arbitrarily* different prices, for no other reason than to gouge, doesn't seem to have much ethical grounds (yeah, ok, they said it was a "test"...hopefully it doesn't become their modus operandi).
I don't know actually. Perhaps I should have said "arbitrarily differential pricing". For instance, I don't think it is wrong for insurance agencies to charge for different age ranges and car models. That's plain sense - it's more risk for them. However, something like Amazon charging *arbitrarily* different prices, for no other reason than to gouge, doesn't seem to have much ethical grounds (yeah, ok, they said it was a "test"...hopefully it doesn't become their modus operandi).
Yes I totally agree. I have a pet theory that as communications technology advances at an increasingly feverish pace, that while our communication *connections* and channels of data will go up, their *meaning* will go down in proportion. Since phones and email, each individual probably comes into contact with, say, 10 or 20 times the number of people he/she would otherwise...but count on your fingers those you really have rich meaningful *relationships* with. Technology is great, but humans were just not designed for this. We were designed for a clan-sized population (ever wonder why everybody has to be so damn proud about something? Geek Pride...eh?). I think that as the industrial age commodified our bodies, the "information" age is commodifying our minds and hearts and souls (if you allow me to get mushy). I mean, it almost seems noble to work physically all day and come back to a humble abode with a plain meal, while it seems hollow to drive out in your nice car, pick up a latte, browse through the latest fluffy tech mag, and spend 8-12 hours of your day in front of a screen shooting electrons at your face.
So sure, on the surface, I think this technology is some hot shit. I can download data on a remote server and have it update my palm pilot so I can track my stock quotes while I'm on the john. *Who the hell cares!*
I think in the "post-modern" (yes overly abused) world, programming must be one of the most nihilistic occupations. You are paid to sit and push bits around.
Yeah I'm probably burnt out. So where's my disability check?
Well, everybody has to create "meaning" in their life (you can think this is rubbish but your body is very stubborn about this). I guess my "meaning" was getting interested and active in politics. To perhaps help fix a world full of injustices. To do something meaningful. Hell, maybe I won't make a difference to the world...but at least it will make a difference to me. So you can pretty much figure out my sig.
Go find a meaning.
yeah, plus all the sex
Well, it doesn't look like *barf*. It actually looks decent, except for the garish logo and I-wannabe-an-ibook handle. Oh wait, remove those, and it just looks like a normal laptop.
Ok, IANAPhysicist (although I wanted to be ;), but would a large amount of carbon dioxide make feasible the possibility of creating an atmosphere on Mars? Or is the gravity just too low? I thought CO2, as it behaves here on earth in the green-house effect, can do the same in other environments, trapping humidity, heat, and other gasses. Is this right? If so, it would be cool if they just tapped the CO2 "wells" to create an instant atmosphere ;)
What's the problem here? If you don't like it, don't shop there.
Well, except that I think differential pricing is illegal. If it isn't, it is at least unethical.
And no, not everything can be solved by "if you don't like it, don't shop there". Hey, maybe I don't like the practices of Archer Daniels Midland, or Monsanto. Try and buy food that *hasn't* passed through their hands. You pretty much can't. How can you tell? You can't use that excuse against monopolies. And while there are many corporations out there, many are equally as bad as the others, so there is effectively no "choice" to be made.
It's a crime that corporations are treated as individuals under law, because in many cases they don't have to hold up to their responsibilities and are unnaccountable for their actions. Yes corporations and businesses should be allowed to exist. But it should *also* be understood that a corporate charter is a mandate given on the good graces of the hosting society, which can pull it when the corporation does not behave well.
And for the record, I sympathize with many of the Libertarian ideas, but think that "pure" libertarianism verges on irresponsibility. I believe government can and should play a positive role in providing fundamental services to citizens, if it is architected to resist corruption, and open to a real democracy. I feel the Green party, and Nader's candidacy, is the best of many worlds, by mixing some good libertarian ideas, a passion for social justice, and a good helping of civic responsibility and "daily democracy". That's why I'm voting for Nader.
I agree with many of your sentiments. The "two party" system is a crock. The two "major" candidates are corporate clones of slightly different flavors. I also agree with a lot of the Libertarian philosophy, however, I believe being a pure libertarian verges on plain irresponsibility. I believe government can and should play a positive role in providing certain fundamental services to citizens, if we architect the system to resist corruption. Therefore I am voting for Mr. Nader of the Green party. To me he has many of the pluses of the libertarian ideals, plus the added bonus of a passion for social justice, which this world and country has far too little of.
But in general, to all those undecideds, independents, and progressives out there, I say: Please, take a moment, analyse the third party candidates, and ask yourself who you really trust and who you would really like in office. Elections are not horse-races or soda tasting contests; you should vote your conscience. For anybody that dissuades you from voting on your conscience on the basis that the candidate "doesn't have a chance", you should immediately discard their persuasions - apparently *they* have already given up and have settled for the lesser of two evils.
(and some facts to nudge you: 1) the election is decided not by popular vote, but by the electoral college. In all but a handful of battleground states, you can vote "freely" for a third party. While it may not have a large effect on who eventually carries that state, it will send a message, and will help build your third party so that *next* time, we can't be ignored; 2) for those liberals or conservatives out there that think that the opposing major candidate will go against your opinions as far as abortion and the supreme court: since abortion was instituted, the most liberal judges were appointed by conservative administrations, and conservative judges by liberal administrations...don't fall into their scare tactic)
Damn, be glad you are hearing from a real *human being* instead of getting some impersonal auto-generated form letter that talks about "performance issues". Mr. Young is taking a risk, putty his neck on the line, and inviting all sorts of personal criticism, to address Red Hat's critics directly. I think this is admirable.
News flash: recent studies reveal politicians are source of juvenile violence. In a test group, violence rates apparently surged due to presence of politicians, while the control group continued its steady decline in violence. Curiosly enough, violence immediately disappeared, AND returned to the predicted lower rate compensating for time, when the presence of politicians was removed.
Studies are currently underway to see if politicians have any affect on cancer rates.
Yes, we need better parents. But the issue is even larger. We have bad parents because this society makes it *easy* to be bad parents. Hey, TV can educate your child, tell them what to eat and wear, what to listen to, how to talk and behave...what are parents *for*? I think while we put a heavy burden on parents we also have to realize we need to foster a society which makes it easier to be a good parent. Our society is way too corporatized and consumerized. Think of a classic rock song. Chances are it's been co-opted to sell you sugar water or an automobile. Yes, it's the fault of the population for wanting what corporations provide...but it is at least as much a fault of the corporations for propagandizing our society into consumer herd mentality. There is no black and white solution. There is no button we can push to fix everything at once. The problem has to be tackled from all sides. Parents need to involve themselves more in their children's lives, and hell, in general their *own* lives away from work. We also need to fight the meme pollution with awareness raising and education, and supporting unbiased public broadcasting and radio.
I guess he meant it when he said "I know I'm ready for the job, but if not, that's just the way it goes".
A more complete hosts file is at: http://www.smartin-designs.com/
;)
Add to this a miniscule http server in C I wrote (ask and it's yours), which returns a 1x1 pixel transparent GIF, and you're set. The web looks a *lot* better.
Oh, yeah, and of course, remap www.nytimes.com to partners.nytimes.com (get the IP).
I am aware. I'm also aware that a lot of the roots of "western" civilization are in turn rooted in arabic civilizations, art and science, and various other sources. Hell, Christianity was a Middle East export (despite the pale white "pure" Jesus we have come to know). But nevertheless we are still surprised and amazed when we stumble upon something we would never before have believed could be made by such primitive people. Because, after all, new is better, and old is stupid.
Hey, what happened to Khaos Linux? I thought they were planning to be the "OpenBSD of Linux". Their site has evaporated (www.khaos.org).
gives a new meaning to bird-brained, eh?
I probably have to get that Pawsense thing. I come home and my computer is online and the cat is sleeping in the computer chair. Verrry suspicious. They also love "helping" to play games.
So Hemos and Taco are saying that karma is not "worth"...that it is some factor to do with how good a moderator you are. Well, I haven't moderated in a long time, but my karma still fluctuates, so that seems to blow that theory away. The fact is, that if you want to foster a decent disussion community, you have to give people *incentive* to post insightfully. My karma was 150 before this cap (yeah, I'll brag, I was proud). But now because of the cap it doesn't *matter* what I post...it will eventually radioactively decay back down. So I'm ending up posting less valuable, off-the cuff remarks. Because there is no incentive NOT to. It's sort of like saying if you behave bad we'll smack you. But if you behave good, we'll also smack you. So...what're you going to do?
Perhaps you guys (Taco/Hemos) don't think karma is the correct measure of worth. Well, come up with one! Or (the valuable) people will just migrate to kuro5hin or other weblogs which actually reward their contributions. Saying that people who worry about karma should "get a life" is so inflammatory. Hey, wake up! This whole Open Source geek thing is all about ego feeding! Perhaps all those Linux hackers should just "get a life" instead of looking for peer esteem, right? Sheesh. So throw some ego crumbs to those who *make* your site guys...or Slashdot will just end up another web has-been.
More fodder for my argument that we were not as dumb as the western tradition would like us to believe we are. Humans built pyramids, built fantastic cities, great works of art and engineering. Sure, they didn't have palm pilots that us clever, obviously more advanced homo sapiens have, but that doesn't mean they were *dumb*. It seems like every year some archeologist finds some *amazing* thing that we would *never* believe was possible to ancient humans (how about that frozen medicine man from Italy, eh?). It's a sort of arrogance. As if all of our great advancements are the natural outcome of the superior "western" civilized mind.
Lessee, could it perhaps be a *cat* pal? I can just hear the synthetic audio hijinx now:
<h.i.s.s.>
<r.o.w.r.>
<m.e.o.w.>
<b.a.r.k.>
(BTW, why the hell is Plain Old Text, still interpreted as html? Angle brackets should show up as angle brackets!)
Lessee, could it perhaps be a *cat* pal? I can just hear the synthetic audio hijinx now:
My god they murdered those poor unborn unicellular children!
Oops...The article says they tested them when they were at the eight-cell stage. I wonder if that makes it 8 times "worse".
I saw this on TV, and they were trying to make a big deal about it. I was thinking, "yeah, so why is this news?" They had a sound bite of some alarmist ethicist who was saying this is a slippery slope to designer babies. Bullocks. If you were planning to have a child anyway (which they were), why not select an egg/embryo who could help save a child you already have? This is a fabricated "issue".
And where are the anti-abortionists claiming that the discarded eggs/embryos where actually "aborted" and murdered? My god they murdered those poor unborn unicellular children!
Ok, as applications, as computing in general, becomes more distributed, I see this type of "Grand Unification" stuff going on. We are no longer in a world of standalone, network independent applications. We're not even in simple client server. As Sun puts it, "the network is the computer", We are in a many to many world, many clients, many servers, many pieces of code which are both, in an arbitrarily teired environment.
.NET matters: migrating a humongous amount of legacy code to this new unified network-centric world, making this migration as painless as possible for C/C++, MSVC, and VB heads, and those already sunk to the waist in other Microsoft legacy crap. If you're in a Microsoft-oriented world, well, yeah, .NET is some hot sh*t because it now allows you to join everybody else. On the other hand, if you are starting from scratch building some core enterprise infrastructure, I'd go with J2EE. It supports (embraces but doesn't extend or extinguish!) pretty much every important standard out there, and is quick to support new ones (e.g., XML). And there is a lot of Open Source support for Java-oriented stuff (Apache's Java and Jakarta umbrella projects for instance).
I'm a full-time Java programmer, so I think J2EE is an excellent "unification". You have everything you need: full featured, cross-platform applications, RPC via RMI or CORBA, "mobile code" via serialization and reconstitution on the other side, full-blown web application support, (pretty) seamless database connectivity, message-oriented middleware, network-aware device capability, Java on portable or embedded devices, myriad well-written libraries and projects under review for addition (generalized preferences, logging, assertions...)...it just goes on and on. Sun's one fault, if it can be considered that, which Microsoft seems to be trying to take care of, is support for multiple languages *within* the VM. Well, technically there is nothing stopping you from writing a compiler for a language that compiles to Java bytecode, but the VM spec and the Java language spec are in some parts interdependent. But I can't blame Sun too much for this...after all, their ability to control Java is what has brought us these solid standards and libraries.
Here is where I think
Ok, I suppose that's enough of a plug from me. I just wanted to give the perspective of someone who is already where Microsoft wants us to go tomorrow.