Why would this be a surprise? Our society is so out of balance that even though we live in a constant state of excess, people get sick from vitamin C deficiency. Here's a link specifically about the United States, which may not be representative of other modern countries. And if we can be deficient in one vitamin due to our high-calorie, low-nutrient diet, why not another?
Like a farmer raising chickens; they want them strong, well fed, happy, healthy, content, disease free, and they take steps to ensure they stay that way. But at the end of the day, they aren't really in it for the chicken's welfare. They would be if the chickens could up and leave if they weren't happy. Not unlike Google's users.
"We don't want VB in Linux". That's a great attitude, and it will continue to perpetuate the idea that Windows is the only "easy" platform to write software in, with Microsoft tools. Fortunately, there's REALbasic. It looks promising, and I have plans to use it. Even for Windows-only development it has two features that VB.NET doesn't have - compiled executables (no.NET framework) and native widgets (actually behaves like other windows apps). And it compiles to Mac OS and Linux. The purists may hate the idea, but I think it has great potential.
That's especially true for start-ups, which don't have the money to compete head to head with larger, more established companies. You'd think so, but then you investigate the story of start-ups like Fox 40, and you start to think the current patent situation really only works for the big guys. They went through all kinds of issues with patent infringement, with court fees that could have buried them before they achieved success. IIRC, they had to settle with the infringers because they couldn't afford to continue with litigation. Unfortunately, I can't find the references online (I watched a documentary on television years ago when they had just settled).
Somehow I don't think Verizon is going to settle with Vonage, certainly not due to the financial difficulties this suit has caused them.
More than that, how do you double the height of a dome? Yep, you make it twice as wide. How do you double the height of a straight-sided building? You make the walls stronger. Straight-sided buildings make better use of airspace, and so make better use of the surface area of our planet.
The two things are entirely different. I'm not overly concerned about terrorist attacks, and very much concerned about government interference/corruption. I was just pointing out what would probably be the more economic and effective vector. As a matter of fact, the action in the book I referred to had nothing to do with terrorism - the main character is one of the targets of a military coup.
I agree with just about all your general sentiments. But, like in the book, those with a compelling need or incredible wealth are the best targets to use as a programmed agent. After all, they'll likely have access to people or locations that are most valuable to attack. OTOH, to enact widespread societal change would require ubiquity, which is much farther down the road. Propaganda will probably always be cheaper for the government.
And yes, I fear governments far more than I do terrorists. Terrorists are like the lottery you don't want to win. The good news is, the odds are still low for you to be targeted. But the government is always there in any place that's worth living, and will have some impact in your life.
Seconded. Before I started taking my little white pills, I had more difficulty managing stress, and losing control if stress got too high. I'd been managing this for years without medication, with little success. I was doing things that I didn't want to do. Then the stress point would pass, I'd feel bad, redouble my efforts, and it would happen again sooner or later. Now, I lose control a lot less, when I lose control it's not as bad, and it doesn't last as long. So, depending on how you define it, my personality hasn't changed, or it's changed to what I've been striving towards for years.
For those of you who say I should have just sucked it up, I'll give you an analogy. Imagine that during every waking instant you have to squeeze a wrist exerciser. No matter what else happens, you need to keep that grip or someone's going to get hurt. No matter how strong you are, you're going to get tired, or distracted, or just sick of having to maintain that grip. That's what it was like for me. Every now and then I need to apply that grip, but it's no longer constant. When the time comes, I can easily deal with it. I spend a lot less time regretting the things I've done, because I do a lot fewer things that I wouldn't have done if I'd had control. I'd rather not take those little white pills, but if I have to take them for the rest of my life to maintain this state that's something I can accept.
Its like buying a Mercedes to go to the demolition derby, it just doesn't make sense. I was thinking more of a hacking expedition myself. Hijack someone through their hardware, program them to do what you want (which may not be what they want) and you don't need to use the prospect of 70 virgins in the afterlife for people to do your dirty work. Just a few hours of downtime with the right person...
That hasn't stopped me saying some people I know should quit bitching and buy it. After all, since they use Microsoft stuff anyway, they might as well get the next incarnation. Your statement is simply backwards. Is this what you said to people who had Win98SE? "Well, ME is out. Quit yer bitchin' and get on the bandwagon!"? Not me. I saw it, said "Yep, prettier icons, nothing I need that isn't in Win98." Then the bugs came out.
I'm not satisfied with what I see in Windows Vista. More glitz, little or no functionality improvements. If I got a new computer today, I'd take advantage of the licensing options from my office and install XP on it. I've been waiting for a new computer for work for a while, now I'm torn about whether I want to upgrade or not. Sure, the hardware is old, and some irritating glitches are appearing, but do I want to have to deal with all that is Vista to fix that? Hard call.
The upgrade treadmill has a whole list of problems, and needs to be assessed. Everyone has to find their own balance between the bleeding edge and the stability of mature products.
They are a visual aid, designed to allow you to display visual information. That means slides like charts, graphs, photographs, logos, etc. When you're discussing something that lacks a visual aid, the slide should show nothing more than the topic of discussion. But how will I use the 700 features in PowerPoint, especially the 30 new ones in the latest version?
Rather than an ethics based on questionable categories we need one based on functions - especially cognitive capabilities relating to suffering. I don't see how this isn't already covered by animal protection laws. It's been said often enough before that child rights got passed by way of animal cruelty laws (yes, there was a time when children weren't considered to have rights!). But look at most of the rights provided by the US Constitution with respect to those we currently call animals. Religion? Seems doubtful. Free speech? Let's work on speech first (keeping in mind that two-way communication with chimps and a few other species has been achieved). Liberty? Kids aren't allowed complete liberty, why would we give it to species with less capabilities than the average teenager?
So, while I can see some subset of rights being given to almost any species, trying to get them labelled as 'persons' seems disingenuous at best. And most of the rights I feel animals are entitled to are already covered by animal cruelty laws.
I only see one major problem with using biofuels derived from algae, and hemp in the interim. I prefer my biofuels aged - a few million years just has the feeling of excess about it that these new biofuels can't compete with.
Perhaps it is another control, which we don't really notice, that as a society gets to the state of opulence and stagnation it stops reproducing enough and collapses due to a lack of enough people to keep it going. Though, with the ease of movement we have today, immigration to such countries is able to offset that decline, so we may have even killed off this limiting factor. Or perhaps we're just spreading this limiting factor to other places where it wouldn't normally apply, while taking the additional (possibly temporary) burden on ourselves. Then this will give them time and space to reach a level of opulence where limiting factors affect them. I'm not sure if that will happen before the collapse of our current culture, or how much immigration affects things (is it enough to tip the balance?), but I'm sure we'll all know the answer one day...
I expect the worst, and hope for the best. Sadly, I find I'm rarely surprised, but always in a good way. When I am, I tend to keep those who've surprised me close - they're worth having around.
And in what way was my statement about Russia cynical or nihilistic?
You keep constantly speaking of blindly following a given belief. What if perhaps the belief I follow isn't blind? What if I have good reason to dislike America, or China, or Russia? I don't like America for a few simple reasons. Their elected officials keep touting them as the best country in the world, and have the power to enforce their opinions. Their population keeps electing said officials who seem to have no sense of justice or decency. This continues while their government removes the things which made them what they are (notably liberty), one at a time.
So why do I dislike America? Because they are moving at a downward trend with respect to the things I believe in, and their citizens continue to allow it. Why do I dislike far too many Americans? Because they have a provincial attitude, remaining ignorant of the world at large, and being proud of it. This is not to say I dislike all Americans. Like everywhere else, trends don't cover all instances. This applies to trends that are real or imaginary.
I'm also not impressed with China. Not because they're moving on a downward trend in the areas I care about - they've been very consistent for years, and may even be improving in some areas. But they're below a threshold that I find unacceptable.
On the other hand, I reserve judgement for Russia. Sure, they're fucking up in a number of areas, but there are other areas that they're actually trying to improve on. Also, they've been dealt a number of very serious blows, and people tend to think more about where their next meal is coming from than 'justice for all'. They tend to get more concern and pity from me than disgust.
I try very hard to not be blind about my beliefs, even those which aren't rational. But if you don't think nationalism is a concern, when one country has more military might than just about any other country in the entire world, then you're being as blind as the people you're disparaging.
It could prevent an entire industry from developing. And how do you know a system to promote innovation is broken? When people start worrying about the above when it's used. I really do wish the patent system could be useful for something other than as a vehicle to initiate lawsuits.
Unfortunately, much of what happens in government is due to the vocal (or wealthy) minority. The DMCA is a prime example of legislation passed due to the wealthy minority. And here's a classic example of the vocal minority shooting themselves in the foot.
A store was going to be built on a piece of land near a major intersection. It just so happened that the land was almost undeveloped, just a gravel footpath running through it. A number of wild species called it home, and the environmentalists got upset with the idea of this land being developed and harming the native species there. Apparently a couple runs were done, trying to accommodate the environmentalists, who were never happy. End result? The chain who purchased the land sold it to another business, they designed things how they wanted, and told the environmentalists that they weren't interested in their opinions. So instead of getting some accommodations in what was likely an inevitable outcome (prime land won't be left fallow forever), they got none whatsoever.
This is a common problem with most vocal minorities. They want it all, now. This turns off pretty much everyone else, and nothing is done about the situation (FSF, anyone?). Some things have to be done one step at a time, in order for the majority to get comfortable with the idea. They should be applauding every step in the right direction while maintaining that more needs to be done. Instead, they decry the attempts to create change as simply not enough.
None of this means I don't agree with you, just that I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Regardless of the specifics, shouldn't we all be willing to agree that it's good to be more efficient with our expenses of energy? Shouldn't we be able to agree that pollution is bad and trees are good? Can we start with what we can all agree on, and work on compromises where we might be able to reach an agreement? Or must we really just dig our heels in on stupid ideologies and accomplish nothing? I don't think very many people disagree with this sentiment, it's more an issue of degree. Is damaging the economy worth the reduced risk? How much damage to the economy? How much risk reduction? I'm personally in favour of any lifestyle changes people are willing to make in order to minimize their impact on the environment, especially if there's no cost. Energy efficient housing is a good example. But bigger changes require more effort to convince people, and silencing skeptics doesn't work for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would this be a surprise? Our society is so out of balance that even though we live in a constant state of excess, people get sick from vitamin C deficiency. Here's a link specifically about the United States, which may not be representative of other modern countries. And if we can be deficient in one vitamin due to our high-calorie, low-nutrient diet, why not another?
Live with your dad, eh? :D
Somehow I don't think Verizon is going to settle with Vonage, certainly not due to the financial difficulties this suit has caused them.
More than that, how do you double the height of a dome? Yep, you make it twice as wide. How do you double the height of a straight-sided building? You make the walls stronger. Straight-sided buildings make better use of airspace, and so make better use of the surface area of our planet.
The two things are entirely different. I'm not overly concerned about terrorist attacks, and very much concerned about government interference/corruption. I was just pointing out what would probably be the more economic and effective vector. As a matter of fact, the action in the book I referred to had nothing to do with terrorism - the main character is one of the targets of a military coup.
I agree with just about all your general sentiments. But, like in the book, those with a compelling need or incredible wealth are the best targets to use as a programmed agent. After all, they'll likely have access to people or locations that are most valuable to attack. OTOH, to enact widespread societal change would require ubiquity, which is much farther down the road. Propaganda will probably always be cheaper for the government.
And yes, I fear governments far more than I do terrorists. Terrorists are like the lottery you don't want to win. The good news is, the odds are still low for you to be targeted. But the government is always there in any place that's worth living, and will have some impact in your life.
Seconded. Before I started taking my little white pills, I had more difficulty managing stress, and losing control if stress got too high. I'd been managing this for years without medication, with little success. I was doing things that I didn't want to do. Then the stress point would pass, I'd feel bad, redouble my efforts, and it would happen again sooner or later. Now, I lose control a lot less, when I lose control it's not as bad, and it doesn't last as long. So, depending on how you define it, my personality hasn't changed, or it's changed to what I've been striving towards for years.
For those of you who say I should have just sucked it up, I'll give you an analogy. Imagine that during every waking instant you have to squeeze a wrist exerciser. No matter what else happens, you need to keep that grip or someone's going to get hurt. No matter how strong you are, you're going to get tired, or distracted, or just sick of having to maintain that grip. That's what it was like for me. Every now and then I need to apply that grip, but it's no longer constant. When the time comes, I can easily deal with it. I spend a lot less time regretting the things I've done, because I do a lot fewer things that I wouldn't have done if I'd had control. I'd rather not take those little white pills, but if I have to take them for the rest of my life to maintain this state that's something I can accept.
And here's a book that starts on that premise.
I'm not satisfied with what I see in Windows Vista. More glitz, little or no functionality improvements. If I got a new computer today, I'd take advantage of the licensing options from my office and install XP on it. I've been waiting for a new computer for work for a while, now I'm torn about whether I want to upgrade or not. Sure, the hardware is old, and some irritating glitches are appearing, but do I want to have to deal with all that is Vista to fix that? Hard call.
The upgrade treadmill has a whole list of problems, and needs to be assessed. Everyone has to find their own balance between the bleeding edge and the stability of mature products.
The answer, of course, is "don't".
So, while I can see some subset of rights being given to almost any species, trying to get them labelled as 'persons' seems disingenuous at best. And most of the rights I feel animals are entitled to are already covered by animal cruelty laws.
I agree with most of your post, but please explain to me what makes you think Vista can send email as fast as XP.
I only see one major problem with using biofuels derived from algae, and hemp in the interim. I prefer my biofuels aged - a few million years just has the feeling of excess about it that these new biofuels can't compete with.
I expect the worst, and hope for the best. Sadly, I find I'm rarely surprised, but always in a good way. When I am, I tend to keep those who've surprised me close - they're worth having around.
And in what way was my statement about Russia cynical or nihilistic?
You keep constantly speaking of blindly following a given belief. What if perhaps the belief I follow isn't blind? What if I have good reason to dislike America, or China, or Russia? I don't like America for a few simple reasons. Their elected officials keep touting them as the best country in the world, and have the power to enforce their opinions. Their population keeps electing said officials who seem to have no sense of justice or decency. This continues while their government removes the things which made them what they are (notably liberty), one at a time.
So why do I dislike America? Because they are moving at a downward trend with respect to the things I believe in, and their citizens continue to allow it. Why do I dislike far too many Americans? Because they have a provincial attitude, remaining ignorant of the world at large, and being proud of it. This is not to say I dislike all Americans. Like everywhere else, trends don't cover all instances. This applies to trends that are real or imaginary.
I'm also not impressed with China. Not because they're moving on a downward trend in the areas I care about - they've been very consistent for years, and may even be improving in some areas. But they're below a threshold that I find unacceptable.
On the other hand, I reserve judgement for Russia. Sure, they're fucking up in a number of areas, but there are other areas that they're actually trying to improve on. Also, they've been dealt a number of very serious blows, and people tend to think more about where their next meal is coming from than 'justice for all'. They tend to get more concern and pity from me than disgust.
I try very hard to not be blind about my beliefs, even those which aren't rational. But if you don't think nationalism is a concern, when one country has more military might than just about any other country in the entire world, then you're being as blind as the people you're disparaging.
I swear to god, this is the only day the Slashdot editors actually work.
Or we can use standing stones for ones. Hmm...Stonehenge as a proof-of-concept? I'll bet it says "Hello World."
Unfortunately, much of what happens in government is due to the vocal (or wealthy) minority. The DMCA is a prime example of legislation passed due to the wealthy minority. And here's a classic example of the vocal minority shooting themselves in the foot.
A store was going to be built on a piece of land near a major intersection. It just so happened that the land was almost undeveloped, just a gravel footpath running through it. A number of wild species called it home, and the environmentalists got upset with the idea of this land being developed and harming the native species there. Apparently a couple runs were done, trying to accommodate the environmentalists, who were never happy. End result? The chain who purchased the land sold it to another business, they designed things how they wanted, and told the environmentalists that they weren't interested in their opinions. So instead of getting some accommodations in what was likely an inevitable outcome (prime land won't be left fallow forever), they got none whatsoever.
This is a common problem with most vocal minorities. They want it all, now. This turns off pretty much everyone else, and nothing is done about the situation (FSF, anyone?). Some things have to be done one step at a time, in order for the majority to get comfortable with the idea. They should be applauding every step in the right direction while maintaining that more needs to be done. Instead, they decry the attempts to create change as simply not enough.
None of this means I don't agree with you, just that I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Perhaps we should start burning propagandists. At least the debates would be more restrained, and they're more or less carbon-neutral.