Game theory is interesting, I read up on it myself. It seems to deal with learning what the rules are in situations similar to those outlined above, and then exploiting those rules for your own gain. If history shows that this one group over here flourished when they all cooperated, well, wow, gee... what happens if I manipulated my way to being the leader of such a group? I could flourish, plus one!
Though I believe it is nearly unprovable, I suspect that the success of such a group is inversely proportional to the number of weasels trying to take advantage of it.
And does it say why you should care whether anyone besides yourself is happy?
Does game theory say that there is no possible way to keep those people seperate enough from yourself that if they are unhappy you won't suffer ill consequences?
Can you think of no ways in which keeping other people unhappy might be profitable to you?
People read those studies, and decide they are important for strategy. "Hey, I keep him happy for the next 6 months, and I'll get my promotion!".
There are nuances that science will likely never explore deeply, or even touch. Science in and of itself, with no moral framework, with no guidelines... well, let's just say I don't want to end the thread.
If I cry, it's not that religion is winning. It's for the missed opportunity for it to have been something good. I wish I could explain, but my inspiration is waning, and if you can't read what I meant to say, then I've failed.
I'm not arguing about any specific religion, or any particular advocates of it. Scroll down past this post, and see how many (wrongly, in my opinion) think science is the "how" and religion is the "why".
Religion shouldn't be the "why". It should be the "now that we understand this process, what can we do with it, what should we do with it ?"
Nothing seems to claim to do this for us. Religion does it capriciously, when it feels like it, when it's bored with nothing else to do. Science says "I just built the damn airplane wing, I have no clue where we should fly!" and follows up with a "Give me 50 years and $4 million more in research funding, and I'll map out places that we can go".
We were given an entire planet to use, and use wisely. One with enough resources to turn it into a paradise rivalling anything that any bible might describe. It doesn't really matter if God gave it to us, or if pure random chance gave it to us, now does it? Only what we do with it. And look what we've done. Are you proud?
If you continue to belittle all the hypocritical religions, whether because of their greed, or the obstacles they put up to education, you'll have that much less time to figure out any of the important truths yourself.
Some day, evolution in general, and that humans themselves evolved, may be proven. Religion will fight that, tooth and nail, til the bitter end. As likely as evolution seems to me, I regret that that day may come. It will be the day that sociopaths concoct assassination viruses in their basement, where spoiled rich kids grow barbed tails to piss off their parents, and you and I are forced to alter our bodies at the genetic level just so we can have affordable health care. That's the best case scenario.
And if it did happen that way, religion could have spent the time between then and now, putting all its effort into articulating what we should be doing once we had that technology.
I wonder if there's a deity somewhere saying "Bwahaha, you *mean* disproving some outlandish folktales about me that I never claimed were true".
If that were the case though, he must be an asshole. He can't spare 15 minutes to settle a 10,000 year old argument for us? I'll be damned if I let him borrow my jack when I see him at the side of the road with a flat.
There are things that science will never be able to teach us, that desperately need to be taught. Things religion could, if it chose to stop wasting time arguing over whether speciation will occur given no outside (read: supernatural) influences.
Science will never present us with a peer-reviewed study proving once and for all that you should be good to your fellow man, and treat him like a brother. Particle accelerator runs will never hint that we all have it within us to put an end to petty bickering, violence, and even earth-shattering wars.
Will the next economic theory show once and for all, that there is so much more to be gained if every child went to bed without hunger? That great things could happen if we ignored greed and lived lives unblinded by mindless pursuit of wealth?
Every time a biblethumper gets pissy about "larnin' evomoluzhun in ar skools" they've missed their mark so completely, I don't know whether to chuckle or cry.
I'd actually try to not work with it. Multimode with the ends already on it seems cheap enough, and available at nearly any length. Past that, it's conduit, alot of free labor digging the trench to put it in, and a cheap dlink switch away from being a network.
I'm not sure we disagree. Might be semantics. But I'm too tired to figure out what words we have common definitions of. If it makes you feel better, you've been crossed off my list of assholes.
Voluntary associations that result in companies having 3,000,000 shares (each potentialy owned by a different individual), run by a board of directors that can in theory do nearly anything without any liability? These artificial citizens can for instance, use their "free speech" and campaign contributions to influence elections from the local scale all the way up to the federal and international (think UN, WTO, etc). So, yeh, voluntary association does have its problems too. Should a corp. be allowed to have more influence than any single citizen, should citizens be forced to group together to combat it? Should we really be institutionalizing this lame-ass groupthink? (Those who can backstab their way to the leadership positions in these groups answer "yes", as do those who someday wish to do the same).
Does that mean we need a police force forcing everyone to not associate? Hell no. We just need the ijits who think they're cool libertarians to stop worshipping it like it's some nirvanna straight out of a Randist wet dream. Stop worshipping it. Start thinking, and never let the association grow so big that you don't know everyone involved personally and can't go bitchslap them if they start used the collective clout to do something illegal or immoral.
Do I get pissed when a small business lays someone off? No. It's regrettable, but they do the best they can. If a huge corporation is allowed to have billions in revenue and even more in the bank, the only reason that should be allowed is to provide more for their workers, when times are lean. Otherwise, we should dissolve all the special privileges that they get.
I never advocated force. I took exception with a stinky cliche that you used. You know, the kind people use when they have no words of their own?
But please, go on. I want to hear more about how our only problems stem from the fact that we don't have pure capitalism. Once we achieve that dream, these laidoff losers can start selling kidneys on ebay to make up for their lack of jobs.
Actually, funny you should mention that. I don't support our government, and it is obvious to me that both the republican party and the democrat party have failed us in the most unforgivable of ways.
But your slashdot-styled libertarianism isn't a solution either, even if it could be implemented in whatever grandiose fashion you think fit. I doubt the libertarian revolution will redistribute the massive accumulation of wealth that has already occurred, and because of that, you're right back in the same pickle, aren't you?
No, power doesn't corrupt. It might look that way to ijits, but all your best examples are of assholes who gamed the system until they were at the top. They were corrupt already. But I'll tell you what, I'll make it easier for you. I neither want power (let alone absolute) nor do I want to hand it off to anyone else (sure as hell couldn't trust anyone else).
The world needs a better system. Capitalism won't deliver a libertarian paradise to us... it can make more profit selling us a lower quality product that we have to replace every 3 years.
That rhetoric wears thin. Maybe you didn't notice, but the parent poster is pointing out that the inevitable outcome of all this, is a robotic worldwide factory force, owned by just a few, with nothing left for the rest of us. If you can't see that, then you're daft. It might only be 30 years from now, maybe 300, hard to say yet. But it will happen.
I'm sure some of our grandchildren will be able to whore themselves out somehow for a pittance, personal servants to the wealthy, eking out an existence at the expense of any dignity.
Capitalism (corporatism?) isn't designed to prevent this. Even if it was, the movement is already underway to gut such protections, meager as they are, through bought legislation, propaganda campaigns and willing tools like yourself.
In the end, you can't even count on your magic "invisible hand" giving you a reach-around.
The copper is actually short, less than a mile, less than 1000ft in many cases. They use HFC, hybrid fiber/coax. It's fiber nearly until it gets to you. What's more, it's heavily insulated/shielded coax, and has alot more bandwidth than the standard telco loop.
Contrast this with a telco loop which can be 5+ miles of unshielded copper.
I wasn't necessarily thinking live broadcast TV myself. But I'm in the idea stages for a neighborhood gigabit network. We won't be able to get any decent kind of internet uplink, and so we were brainstorming other uses for such a network, other than games. I myself suggested multicasting our own "tv stations" with whatever content we like.
The premise is that if several of my friends actually move in next door, we might spend the summer digging trenches, and burying conduit with multimode. Gigabit fiber switches are thinkable, especially considering we only need one of those 4port dlinks right now. Gigabit nics are cheap, even those with SC connectors. Conduit is cheap, and our labor is free. Potentially, 16 houses could be wired up, without crossing a street. Anyone thinking of moving to Richmond VA, send me an email, ok? I'm somewhat serious...
That doesn't make any sense. Then again, I wouldn't be shocked to stumble upon a "Your computer acquired a new DHCP lease and needs to restart." message. Who knows.
Would wired gigabit be enough for a decent cable tv selection, assuming you were competent to set up the multicasting correctly? And how much bandwidth would it eat up per channel, and what kind of video might you get?
Is it truly enough bandwidth that you could consider wasting a bunch of it on say, a basic cable setup?
And, if one of our customers at work is to be believed, XP may still need a reboot, after switching it from DHCP to a static IP. Granted most customers claim they have "windows millenium edition 2000" or "2000 XP" or even "windows 95 XP"...
But this one that I remember clearly, didn't even bother to tell me. I had to ask what color her start button was, and she answered "green".
Maybe they'll just make it so you can't write a GPL contract. The right bribes, the right twisted thinking, Bill O'reilly applauding the decision on Fox news, who knows? You must be one of those that see law as some shining bastion of pure virtue, keeping the forces of darkness at bay.
I see it as a bought and paid for service, affordable to only a few, that always has a loophole for those rich enough to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Science isn't trying to do it, denies wanting anything to do with it.
Religion could have that all too itself, but (mostly) ignores it.
Game theory is interesting, I read up on it myself. It seems to deal with learning what the rules are in situations similar to those outlined above, and then exploiting those rules for your own gain. If history shows that this one group over here flourished when they all cooperated, well, wow, gee... what happens if I manipulated my way to being the leader of such a group? I could flourish, plus one!
Though I believe it is nearly unprovable, I suspect that the success of such a group is inversely proportional to the number of weasels trying to take advantage of it.
And does it say why you should care whether anyone besides yourself is happy?
Does game theory say that there is no possible way to keep those people seperate enough from yourself that if they are unhappy you won't suffer ill consequences?
Can you think of no ways in which keeping other people unhappy might be profitable to you?
People read those studies, and decide they are important for strategy. "Hey, I keep him happy for the next 6 months, and I'll get my promotion!".
There are nuances that science will likely never explore deeply, or even touch. Science in and of itself, with no moral framework, with no guidelines... well, let's just say I don't want to end the thread.
If I cry, it's not that religion is winning. It's for the missed opportunity for it to have been something good. I wish I could explain, but my inspiration is waning, and if you can't read what I meant to say, then I've failed.
I'm not arguing about any specific religion, or any particular advocates of it. Scroll down past this post, and see how many (wrongly, in my opinion) think science is the "how" and religion is the "why".
Religion shouldn't be the "why". It should be the "now that we understand this process, what can we do with it, what should we do with it ?"
Nothing seems to claim to do this for us. Religion does it capriciously, when it feels like it, when it's bored with nothing else to do. Science says "I just built the damn airplane wing, I have no clue where we should fly!" and follows up with a "Give me 50 years and $4 million more in research funding, and I'll map out places that we can go".
We were given an entire planet to use, and use wisely. One with enough resources to turn it into a paradise rivalling anything that any bible might describe. It doesn't really matter if God gave it to us, or if pure random chance gave it to us, now does it? Only what we do with it. And look what we've done. Are you proud?
If you continue to belittle all the hypocritical religions, whether because of their greed, or the obstacles they put up to education, you'll have that much less time to figure out any of the important truths yourself.
Some day, evolution in general, and that humans themselves evolved, may be proven. Religion will fight that, tooth and nail, til the bitter end. As likely as evolution seems to me, I regret that that day may come. It will be the day that sociopaths concoct assassination viruses in their basement, where spoiled rich kids grow barbed tails to piss off their parents, and you and I are forced to alter our bodies at the genetic level just so we can have affordable health care. That's the best case scenario.
And if it did happen that way, religion could have spent the time between then and now, putting all its effort into articulating what we should be doing once we had that technology.
I wonder if there's a deity somewhere saying "Bwahaha, you *mean* disproving some outlandish folktales about me that I never claimed were true".
If that were the case though, he must be an asshole. He can't spare 15 minutes to settle a 10,000 year old argument for us? I'll be damned if I let him borrow my jack when I see him at the side of the road with a flat.
In it's ill-considered fight against science.
Which is a shame.
There are things that science will never be able to teach us, that desperately need to be taught. Things religion could, if it chose to stop wasting time arguing over whether speciation will occur given no outside (read: supernatural) influences.
Science will never present us with a peer-reviewed study proving once and for all that you should be good to your fellow man, and treat him like a brother. Particle accelerator runs will never hint that we all have it within us to put an end to petty bickering, violence, and even earth-shattering wars.
Will the next economic theory show once and for all, that there is so much more to be gained if every child went to bed without hunger? That great things could happen if we ignored greed and lived lives unblinded by mindless pursuit of wealth?
Every time a biblethumper gets pissy about "larnin' evomoluzhun in ar skools" they've missed their mark so completely, I don't know whether to chuckle or cry.
"BOOOOOP. You have 19,347,802,206,103 new messages. You have 3 old messages. Press 7 to delete."
I'd actually try to not work with it. Multimode with the ends already on it seems cheap enough, and available at nearly any length. Past that, it's conduit, alot of free labor digging the trench to put it in, and a cheap dlink switch away from being a network.
Why cat5? Multimode fiber is cheap.
I'm not sure we disagree. Might be semantics. But I'm too tired to figure out what words we have common definitions of. If it makes you feel better, you've been crossed off my list of assholes.
The people who stand to gain from such a world can see this too. That's why the population control meme is so prevalent.
Voluntary associations that result in companies having 3,000,000 shares (each potentialy owned by a different individual), run by a board of directors that can in theory do nearly anything without any liability? These artificial citizens can for instance, use their "free speech" and campaign contributions to influence elections from the local scale all the way up to the federal and international (think UN, WTO, etc). So, yeh, voluntary association does have its problems too. Should a corp. be allowed to have more influence than any single citizen, should citizens be forced to group together to combat it? Should we really be institutionalizing this lame-ass groupthink? (Those who can backstab their way to the leadership positions in these groups answer "yes", as do those who someday wish to do the same).
Does that mean we need a police force forcing everyone to not associate? Hell no. We just need the ijits who think they're cool libertarians to stop worshipping it like it's some nirvanna straight out of a Randist wet dream. Stop worshipping it. Start thinking, and never let the association grow so big that you don't know everyone involved personally and can't go bitchslap them if they start used the collective clout to do something illegal or immoral.
Do I get pissed when a small business lays someone off? No. It's regrettable, but they do the best they can. If a huge corporation is allowed to have billions in revenue and even more in the bank, the only reason that should be allowed is to provide more for their workers, when times are lean. Otherwise, we should dissolve all the special privileges that they get.
So, not cute. Just practical.
I never advocated force. I took exception with a stinky cliche that you used. You know, the kind people use when they have no words of their own?
But please, go on. I want to hear more about how our only problems stem from the fact that we don't have pure capitalism. Once we achieve that dream, these laidoff losers can start selling kidneys on ebay to make up for their lack of jobs.
Actually, funny you should mention that. I don't support our government, and it is obvious to me that both the republican party and the democrat party have failed us in the most unforgivable of ways.
But your slashdot-styled libertarianism isn't a solution either, even if it could be implemented in whatever grandiose fashion you think fit. I doubt the libertarian revolution will redistribute the massive accumulation of wealth that has already occurred, and because of that, you're right back in the same pickle, aren't you?
No, power doesn't corrupt. It might look that way to ijits, but all your best examples are of assholes who gamed the system until they were at the top. They were corrupt already. But I'll tell you what, I'll make it easier for you. I neither want power (let alone absolute) nor do I want to hand it off to anyone else (sure as hell couldn't trust anyone else).
The world needs a better system. Capitalism won't deliver a libertarian paradise to us... it can make more profit selling us a lower quality product that we have to replace every 3 years.
That rhetoric wears thin. Maybe you didn't notice, but the parent poster is pointing out that the inevitable outcome of all this, is a robotic worldwide factory force, owned by just a few, with nothing left for the rest of us. If you can't see that, then you're daft. It might only be 30 years from now, maybe 300, hard to say yet. But it will happen.
I'm sure some of our grandchildren will be able to whore themselves out somehow for a pittance, personal servants to the wealthy, eking out an existence at the expense of any dignity.
Capitalism (corporatism?) isn't designed to prevent this. Even if it was, the movement is already underway to gut such protections, meager as they are, through bought legislation, propaganda campaigns and willing tools like yourself.
In the end, you can't even count on your magic "invisible hand" giving you a reach-around.
The copper is actually short, less than a mile, less than 1000ft in many cases. They use HFC, hybrid fiber/coax. It's fiber nearly until it gets to you. What's more, it's heavily insulated/shielded coax, and has alot more bandwidth than the standard telco loop.
Contrast this with a telco loop which can be 5+ miles of unshielded copper.
I wasn't necessarily thinking live broadcast TV myself. But I'm in the idea stages for a neighborhood gigabit network. We won't be able to get any decent kind of internet uplink, and so we were brainstorming other uses for such a network, other than games. I myself suggested multicasting our own "tv stations" with whatever content we like.
The premise is that if several of my friends actually move in next door, we might spend the summer digging trenches, and burying conduit with multimode. Gigabit fiber switches are thinkable, especially considering we only need one of those 4port dlinks right now. Gigabit nics are cheap, even those with SC connectors. Conduit is cheap, and our labor is free. Potentially, 16 houses could be wired up, without crossing a street. Anyone thinking of moving to Richmond VA, send me an email, ok? I'm somewhat serious...
That doesn't make any sense. Then again, I wouldn't be shocked to stumble upon a "Your computer acquired a new DHCP lease and needs to restart." message. Who knows.
Not-quite-so-dumb-question:
Would wired gigabit be enough for a decent cable tv selection, assuming you were competent to set up the multicasting correctly? And how much bandwidth would it eat up per channel, and what kind of video might you get?
Is it truly enough bandwidth that you could consider wasting a bunch of it on say, a basic cable setup?
Sooner or later the damn debian ijits will track it down and thaw it out, and the plague will start all over again.
And, if one of our customers at work is to be believed, XP may still need a reboot, after switching it from DHCP to a static IP. Granted most customers claim they have "windows millenium edition 2000" or "2000 XP" or even "windows 95 XP"...
But this one that I remember clearly, didn't even bother to tell me. I had to ask what color her start button was, and she answered "green".
Wow, what passes for flamebait now days.
Maybe it is though. Wonder what that means, considering that it is true.
No, but it does mean you have good taste.
Well, either that, or that you finally got tired of windows problems.
Weird things happen.
Maybe they'll just make it so you can't write a GPL contract. The right bribes, the right twisted thinking, Bill O'reilly applauding the decision on Fox news, who knows? You must be one of those that see law as some shining bastion of pure virtue, keeping the forces of darkness at bay.
I see it as a bought and paid for service, affordable to only a few, that always has a loophole for those rich enough to pay for it.