Trade Union Movement is based pretty much on the same oppositional logic of german idealists. The goal of the union movement is to divide people into classes, and to build power bases from the conflicts between the classes.
Trade Unions and Capitalism are inseperable
When you accept dialectical materialism as the basis of society, then they are inseparable. If you reject dialectical materialism and the oppositional logic, then the term "capitalism" pretty much loses its meaning. The idea of reinvesting profits is no longer an "ism." It is no longer a belief system, but simply something that people do to improve their lives.
Then we jump back to Owens. He speaks of a world filled with new BIG patriarchal businesses, where the business essentially replaces the feudal lords of mideaval europe. Is this system of patriarchal business leaders really a paradise?
Personally, I see two different faces in the right. The most prevalent face we see are those that have accepted oppositional logic, and all it entails. There are also many people who reject the very foundations of dialectical materialism. Such people realize things like "monopolies are bad," and "small business is generally better than big business."
That is good information on Robert Owens. Unfortunately, I suspect that the works of Robert Owens and others were hijacked by the German idealists. The "slap dash" history that you dislike is unfortunately a pretty good description of what happened to the world. It seems to me that the revolutionaries fanned every conflict they could. Brutally murdered hundreds of millions of people, and brought a great deal of ill to the world.
Although the "slash dash" history is close to the truth of what happened, I agree with you that the conclusion of the far right is wrong.
The far right has assume that since "communism" is wrong that "capitalism" is right. When infact the whole communism/capitalist divide was an illusion. We have to somehow get over the failed historicist approach used by Marx and learn to recognize and correct the imbalances in the society.
I think most people would look at the Robert Owens view of a patriarchal big business as a bad route to take. But the historical information you provide is very valuable. The debate was hijacked. Now, how do we get it back on track? How do we keep it from being hijacked by the next wave of iconoclasts?
Admit that Capitalism has problems and what those problems are. Then find ways of dealing with those problems.
You don't understand the trick that's been played on us. The terms "capitalism" and "socialism" were pretty much defined by Marx and friends. Capitalism is essentially the distillation of all the evils that existed in the US and Europe. Capitalism is all evils such as the gap between rich and poor, slavery, prostitution, famine, starvation, alcohol abuse, the US version of football, etc..
The idea was that all of the excesses of society would build up creating one massive conflict, and that a new society would be born from the conflict.
To put it is more precise terms. Society would be polarized into the prolitariate and bourgeoisie. These were the thesis and antithesis. The revolutionary would magnify then ignite the conflict. The socialist state would somehow appear in the heap of dead bodies. The revolution was the catharsis of the thesis and antithesis. The humongous pile of dead bodies was just a historic inevitability.
Don't you see. In this twisted little system, Capitalism is the refinement of all the ills of the free market. The people who tried to counter Marx were pinned into trying to defend all the evils of society.
Saying that there are problems in capitalism is an understatement. Capitalism is by definition every excess of the system. So there isn't just holes, there is nothing even remotely redeemable about capitalism. That is the trap we've been in for the last century and a half.
Marx's definition of communism was flawed. So is his definition of capitalism.
Identifying problems and solving problems is the way that society should work, and that is pretty much the way the free market and the American system of democracy works. Unfortunately, we have had the terms of debate poluted by the Marxist debate.
Marx did two things. He defined Communism and he define Capitalism. The revolutionary left has done two great wrongs. First they defined a system of communism that turned fields full of dead bodies. They also defined the term capitalism. We need to completely reject this Marxist form of debate and get back to actually solving problems.
The post is right. This is the face of "capitalism." You need to remember, the word "capitalism" was pretty much defined by the enemies of the free market. The ideologues who defined the term use to describe every excess of the free market. I've been trying to figure out who coined the term capitalism. But it is basically Marx and Weber who turned it into the modern understanding of the term.
The really sad thing is that in trying to defend ourselves against communism, we end up trying to support the excesses of the free market.
Defining the terms of the debate is one of the skills of dialectical materialism. When you define the terms you can make freedom slavery and slavery freedom.
I think NASA should stop sending maned missions to space. Yes, its fun watching manes flap in the wind at launch. It gives NASA the fun, excitement and anticipation of the horse races. But manes really don't help the mission at all and cause more friction than they are worth...Not to mention the cost of grooming and shampoo. Unmaned space exploration is a lot more efficient. So I say get out the scissors and cut the manes off.
Boy, it is wonderful for you to think of pasting the article for us. I mean, professionally published newspapers so rarely have the bandwidth to handle the capacity of the content they deliver...especially ones deep in the backwoods of SF (whereever the hell that is). I there are more than maybe a dozen trained network admins within a hundred miles of this SF place.
Just have Microsoft demonstrate to the court how they stand up against corporate greed to further the rights of the "little man"
I wouldn't be surprised to find that this was the MS legal strategy. I suspect that Bill Gates still sees his little company as a group of hippies gathered in a Albuquerque garage taking on the world of big business to support the small business and hobbyist.
I don't think you are too far from the truth. What we are likely to see is a small number of people gradually propping themselves up as Gods as their interests compound. You will see copyrights extended from a hundred years to centuries and completely stifling the abilities of new borns to publish. I suspect most of society will organize around supportung the political base of the gerontocracy.
Once we have a few people living thousands of years, we will probably see them turn into Saddams and reducing the life expectancy of everyone else. Imagine how power Bill Gates will be if he were to live ten thousand years.
First let me commend you on the politically astute move of pasting the copyrighted article from the Times so that we don't have to register with fake emails to read the article. It is a good example of a praxis in the social revolution. Vive la revolution.
The article itself is a very interesting example of logically flawed writing.
The tech community has always been politically active. It is just that, until recently, the tech community has been largely Libertarian. The tech community had traditionally opted for smaller government and lower taxes.
Only recently has the tech community started demanding traditional left ideas such as protection of US tech workers jobs from lower paid off shore labor. Also only recently has the tech community started demanding curtailing big companies like Microsoft, and absurd ideas like higher taxes on internet access to pay for free downloaded music. Let's tax everything heavily so that it call all be free.
Contrary to what the article says, the tech community has always been politically active. It is only recently that frustrated tech workers have started leaning toward the dialectics of the left.
The same thing happened in the environmental community. The pioneers of the conservation movement originally came from the Republican side of things. They were people who were profoundly distressed by the environmental destruction by big government and big business.
When the left realized that protecting the environment was kewl, they infiltrated and turned environmentalism into a call for bigger government poised against small business.
The article is flawed in its claim that the tech community has only recently developed political awareness. The tech community has been politically actively all along. Only recently has it started turning to the left.
The problem is that courts fall for the David v. Goliath bit.
The two best ways to profit from a bogus patent is to either go for small amounts from small companies that will settle before defending, or to go after the largest companies that jealous lawyers will perceive as having too much money. The courts are desparate to show that they are "for the people" and that bogus patents defend the people.
This is the problem with the current patch work of patent laws, they tend to be more about politics than any thing else.
This ruling is just like the case against eBay that hit last week. The courts want the world to think that patents are helping the little guy, when in fact they are just feeding the legal beast.
No, I admit the post was flamebait by a troll. The ideal of the rule of law being evenly applied has never been part of new think. The whole point of new think is that justice can always be bought. Justice is a simple matter of the forceful application of the power of one's group. Might is right.
One of the big points behind the current mass movement of KaZaA, Napster and/. for that matter is that foundations of the rule of law is no longer applicable. Once new think completely takes hold, then we can get down to the game of accumulating power and rewarding friends and punishing enemies.
Only practicianers of old think could be happy seeing a bad laws enforced evenly. eBay is both powerful and extremely popular. The fact that they got sniped is a good sign that the rule of law is being applied.
That does not mean that spiderweb of IP laws as they stand now is good. This was a joke patent.
Hopefully, this and other publicized IP cases will work their way through to a general change in the law. The worst thing I can see happening is for the bad set of laws to lead to selective application of the law.
The parent and this post are both flamebait because they say that the ideals of the rule of law and property rights are worth defending. Public admission of such archaic beliefs has no place in the new revolution. The new revolution is about the power of mass think. That is the power of P2P. Nikki says "Might makes Right!"
If a large corporation like ebay can't win a case brought up against them for infringing an obviously frivolous patent then what chance do the rest of us have?
Conversely, this case can be used by those trying to show how the patent laws give the little guy a chance to defend themselves from big companies. The fact that ebay loses a suit like this gives credence to the idea that we have rule by law...laws that apply to all.
If the patent wasn't frivolous, and really was the case of a fortune 500 company stealing an idea from a small firm, I would be cheering.
Those who can do. Those who can't claim they did and sue.
Sorry, but it costs to create content. Even worse, it costs to deliver content (bandwidth, etc.).
Most the people I know who've delivered quality content on the net rue their decision. Blogs aren't quality content.
Then there are the tons of reeders who put up put up pourly edited posts, and think, gosh look at this wonderful content I just contributed. I should get all that expensive, extremely time consuming work other people did for free. I don't buy the argument that you can measure the quality of content buy the volume of werds.
The way I see it. My participation in./ isn't as a "contributor." I am a consumer of their product. I am consuming./'s bits and bandwidth as I type. Most of all, I am consuming the large audience that slashdot as build up over the years for my little egotistical jaunts into cyberspace.
The act of my typing out my pourly conceived and incomplete thoughts is an act of consumption. It is a tasty little ego trip I go through. Now lets wait and see if I get mod points...delicious little mod points.
I think the beer people drank for food wasn't quite as strong as what we brew today-for entertainment. Today's brewery's work for a higher alcohol content, breakfast beer was probably more like a fermented barley soup and brewed for a lower alcohol content.
I personally think it would be great if we recognized alcoholic drinks as a food source, since it would encourage people to think more about the nutritional content of what they drink. Hmmm, we might someday have Total Beer commercials..."You would have to drink 4 pints of Blatz to get the same vitamins as one pint of Old Totalovski's..."
I was thinking ahead of myself again. Before we had good, reliable safe drinking water, it was better to drink the beer. Water born vectors still take out a good portion of people in developing countries.
Students visiting Mexico on Spring Break know this inherently: Don't drink the water...drink the beer.
A friend who researched the education of the founding fathers (she spent a ton of time reading diaries, etc.) told me that the morning meal for many a US patriot was a cup of ale. Apparently the ale they drank was a lot heavier and meal like than what we drink today.
It makes sense. In the days before chlorinated water and refrigerator, ale would have been one of the more reliable ways of preserving foods.
Gosh, what an ground breaking, original idea. Schools could have like a library...but for multimedia type stuff. It might be called something like maybe a "Multimedia Library."
This is like ground breaking in the original idea department!!!!!
The main challenge in this article is how to make licenses that allow a member library to distribute copies of works among their members.
The libraries could probably go a long way if they simply had a kiosk system that allowed only one copy of a song to play at a given moment.
Such a program would really just be an extension of the libraries that already exist on campuses...so maybe it is not all that unique.
One of the kewl things about libraries is that they often collect tunes from less known sources.
Agreed, such lawsuits are good for opening the market. Ultimately, however, the market will be best served and maintained by building a manufacturing base that provides OS free machines.
This is more than just the hobby market. Large businesses that want to handle their software licensing separate from the equipment fit in the market as well.
Unfortunately, lawsuits are occasionally necessary in business, but I think people need to keep a focus on what they are building, not just what they are tearing down.
Well, let's say you spent $400 on the box, and sued the store and got $199.00. Well, that is bascially a 50% discount.
The great thing about getting $199 (the full price of the software) from the vendor is that you get substantially more for the software than what the vendor paid...translation: free equipment.
If your aim is simply to reduce your contribution to Bill Gate's wealth, you best approach is to buy your hardware from the few companies that make OS free, or Linux dedicated boxes.
Re:Other technologies go obsolete too, So what?
on
Software Archaeology
·
· Score: 1
In a thousand years, when the world is populated by sterile eunuches produced in test tubes, who will be there to preserve all the pornography and p3n1s enlarging offers that dominate the Internet today!!!! Our culture will be lost!!!!
As for the technology and software, there seems to be a great deal of preservation of crafts that go on today. There are people who have hand looms, spinning wheels, drop spindles, and all sorts of traditional fare.
For that matter, as increased productivity spins more and more workers out of the market, I suspect we will see a large increase in the number of people working traditional crafts to scrape out a living.
The preservation of the past is really a natural habit of people. We really don't need great social leaders like Grady Booch to lecture the world on the matter.
Microsoft is already doing this. Each version of a new MS operating system and office product generally includes a pretty much unedited copy of the previous copy of all prior editions of the software. So they are preserving history.
Each new version, the software gets bigger and bigger and biggers. It is an archealogical wonder in itself. Another name for this coding style is called bloat. Linux has many of the same things going on.
This argument about the need to preserve prior formats has been around for quite awhile. The truth of the matter is that software is largely an evolutionary process. Most file formats build upon the past, so there is a tendency for software to naturally preserve its path.
Of course, for Grady Booch, who wants to be reconized as an intellectual giant a thousand years from now, the main question is if his name will invoke the same awe as say Euclid and Archimedes. He is, after all, one of the trinity of OO modeling approaches.
Bamboo is also flamable...which leaves out common activities like jumping through flaming hoops, or over a burning tar pit. Being made of wood, I really wouldn't want to ride a bamboo bike while juggling chainsaws. There are lots of arguments against bamboo bikes.
Personally, I would love to see more natural fibers in bikes. Rather than making the whole bike from bamboo, making just a few pieces helps reduce the consumption from the titanium mines.
Sig: Flamable materials are dangerous, which is why I always make sure the products I buy are clearly marked as "inflamable."
Yeah, well you might live in a fantasy land where talent and creativity are the prime components of a good film...
But IBM is better placed to synergize the business potential of the graphics medium. Personally, I can't wait to see what will happen with the structural dynamics of Rational Rose hits the big screen in an animated short.
Slashdot Mirror
When you accept dialectical materialism as the basis of society, then they are inseparable. If you reject dialectical materialism and the oppositional logic, then the term "capitalism" pretty much loses its meaning. The idea of reinvesting profits is no longer an "ism." It is no longer a belief system, but simply something that people do to improve their lives.
Then we jump back to Owens. He speaks of a world filled with new BIG patriarchal businesses, where the business essentially replaces the feudal lords of mideaval europe. Is this system of patriarchal business leaders really a paradise?
Personally, I see two different faces in the right. The most prevalent face we see are those that have accepted oppositional logic, and all it entails. There are also many people who reject the very foundations of dialectical materialism. Such people realize things like "monopolies are bad," and "small business is generally better than big business."
That is good information on Robert Owens. Unfortunately, I suspect that the works of Robert Owens and others were hijacked by the German idealists. The "slap dash" history that you dislike is unfortunately a pretty good description of what happened to the world. It seems to me that the revolutionaries fanned every conflict they could. Brutally murdered hundreds of millions of people, and brought a great deal of ill to the world.
Although the "slash dash" history is close to the truth of what happened, I agree with you that the conclusion of the far right is wrong.
The far right has assume that since "communism" is wrong that "capitalism" is right. When infact the whole communism/capitalist divide was an illusion. We have to somehow get over the failed historicist approach used by Marx and learn to recognize and correct the imbalances in the society.
I think most people would look at the Robert Owens view of a patriarchal big business as a bad route to take. But the historical information you provide is very valuable. The debate was hijacked. Now, how do we get it back on track? How do we keep it from being hijacked by the next wave of iconoclasts?
The idea was that all of the excesses of society would build up creating one massive conflict, and that a new society would be born from the conflict.
To put it is more precise terms. Society would be polarized into the prolitariate and bourgeoisie. These were the thesis and antithesis. The revolutionary would magnify then ignite the conflict. The socialist state would somehow appear in the heap of dead bodies. The revolution was the catharsis of the thesis and antithesis. The humongous pile of dead bodies was just a historic inevitability.
Don't you see. In this twisted little system, Capitalism is the refinement of all the ills of the free market. The people who tried to counter Marx were pinned into trying to defend all the evils of society.
Saying that there are problems in capitalism is an understatement. Capitalism is by definition every excess of the system. So there isn't just holes, there is nothing even remotely redeemable about capitalism. That is the trap we've been in for the last century and a half.
Marx's definition of communism was flawed. So is his definition of capitalism.
Identifying problems and solving problems is the way that society should work, and that is pretty much the way the free market and the American system of democracy works. Unfortunately, we have had the terms of debate poluted by the Marxist debate.
Marx did two things. He defined Communism and he define Capitalism. The revolutionary left has done two great wrongs. First they defined a system of communism that turned fields full of dead bodies. They also defined the term capitalism. We need to completely reject this Marxist form of debate and get back to actually solving problems.
The post is right. This is the face of "capitalism." You need to remember, the word "capitalism" was pretty much defined by the enemies of the free market. The ideologues who defined the term use to describe every excess of the free market. I've been trying to figure out who coined the term capitalism. But it is basically Marx and Weber who turned it into the modern understanding of the term.
The really sad thing is that in trying to defend ourselves against communism, we end up trying to support the excesses of the free market.
Defining the terms of the debate is one of the skills of dialectical materialism. When you define the terms you can make freedom slavery and slavery freedom.
I think NASA should stop sending maned missions to space. Yes, its fun watching manes flap in the wind at launch. It gives NASA the fun, excitement and anticipation of the horse races. But manes really don't help the mission at all and cause more friction than they are worth...Not to mention the cost of grooming and shampoo. Unmaned space exploration is a lot more efficient. So I say get out the scissors and cut the manes off.
Boy, it is wonderful for you to think of pasting the article for us. I mean, professionally published newspapers so rarely have the bandwidth to handle the capacity of the content they deliver...especially ones deep in the backwoods of SF (whereever the hell that is). I there are more than maybe a dozen trained network admins within a hundred miles of this SF place.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that this was the MS legal strategy. I suspect that Bill Gates still sees his little company as a group of hippies gathered in a Albuquerque garage taking on the world of big business to support the small business and hobbyist.
I don't think you are too far from the truth. What we are likely to see is a small number of people gradually propping themselves up as Gods as their interests compound. You will see copyrights extended from a hundred years to centuries and completely stifling the abilities of new borns to publish. I suspect most of society will organize around supportung the political base of the gerontocracy.
Once we have a few people living thousands of years, we will probably see them turn into Saddams and reducing the life expectancy of everyone else. Imagine how power Bill Gates will be if he were to live ten thousand years.
First let me commend you on the politically astute move of pasting the copyrighted article from the Times so that we don't have to register with fake emails to read the article. It is a good example of a praxis in the social revolution. Vive la revolution.
The article itself is a very interesting example of logically flawed writing.
The tech community has always been politically active. It is just that, until recently, the tech community has been largely Libertarian. The tech community had traditionally opted for smaller government and lower taxes.
Only recently has the tech community started demanding traditional left ideas such as protection of US tech workers jobs from lower paid off shore labor. Also only recently has the tech community started demanding curtailing big companies like Microsoft, and absurd ideas like higher taxes on internet access to pay for free downloaded music. Let's tax everything heavily so that it call all be free.
Contrary to what the article says, the tech community has always been politically active. It is only recently that frustrated tech workers have started leaning toward the dialectics of the left.
The same thing happened in the environmental community. The pioneers of the conservation movement originally came from the Republican side of things. They were people who were profoundly distressed by the environmental destruction by big government and big business.
When the left realized that protecting the environment was kewl, they infiltrated and turned environmentalism into a call for bigger government poised against small business.
The article is flawed in its claim that the tech community has only recently developed political awareness. The tech community has been politically actively all along. Only recently has it started turning to the left.
The problem is that courts fall for the David v. Goliath bit.
The two best ways to profit from a bogus patent is to either go for small amounts from small companies that will settle before defending, or to go after the largest companies that jealous lawyers will perceive as having too much money. The courts are desparate to show that they are "for the people" and that bogus patents defend the people.
This is the problem with the current patch work of patent laws, they tend to be more about politics than any thing else.
This ruling is just like the case against eBay that hit last week. The courts want the world to think that patents are helping the little guy, when in fact they are just feeding the legal beast.
No, I admit the post was flamebait by a troll. The ideal of the rule of law being evenly applied has never been part of new think. The whole point of new think is that justice can always be bought. Justice is a simple matter of the forceful application of the power of one's group. Might is right.
/. for that matter is that foundations of the rule of law is no longer applicable. Once new think completely takes hold, then we can get down to the game of accumulating power and rewarding friends and punishing enemies.
One of the big points behind the current mass movement of KaZaA, Napster and
Only practicianers of old think could be happy seeing a bad laws enforced evenly. eBay is both powerful and extremely popular. The fact that they got sniped is a good sign that the rule of law is being applied.
That does not mean that spiderweb of IP laws as they stand now is good. This was a joke patent. Hopefully, this and other publicized IP cases will work their way through to a general change in the law. The worst thing I can see happening is for the bad set of laws to lead to selective application of the law.
The parent and this post are both flamebait because they say that the ideals of the rule of law and property rights are worth defending. Public admission of such archaic beliefs has no place in the new revolution. The new revolution is about the power of mass think. That is the power of P2P. Nikki says "Might makes Right!"
Conversely, this case can be used by those trying to show how the patent laws give the little guy a chance to defend themselves from big companies. The fact that ebay loses a suit like this gives credence to the idea that we have rule by law...laws that apply to all.
If the patent wasn't frivolous, and really was the case of a fortune 500 company stealing an idea from a small firm, I would be cheering.
Those who can do. Those who can't claim they did and sue.
Sorry, but it costs to create content. Even worse, it costs to deliver content (bandwidth, etc.).
./ isn't as a "contributor." I am a consumer of their product. I am consuming ./'s bits and bandwidth as I type. Most of all, I am consuming the large audience that slashdot as build up over the years for my little egotistical jaunts into cyberspace.
Most the people I know who've delivered quality content on the net rue their decision. Blogs aren't quality content.
Then there are the tons of reeders who put up put up pourly edited posts, and think, gosh look at this wonderful content I just contributed. I should get all that expensive, extremely time consuming work other people did for free. I don't buy the argument that you can measure the quality of content buy the volume of werds.
The way I see it. My participation in
The act of my typing out my pourly conceived and incomplete thoughts is an act of consumption. It is a tasty little ego trip I go through. Now lets wait and see if I get mod points...delicious little mod points.
I think the beer people drank for food wasn't quite as strong as what we brew today-for entertainment. Today's brewery's work for a higher alcohol content, breakfast beer was probably more like a fermented barley soup and brewed for a lower alcohol content.
I personally think it would be great if we recognized alcoholic drinks as a food source, since it would encourage people to think more about the nutritional content of what they drink. Hmmm, we might someday have Total Beer commercials..."You would have to drink 4 pints of Blatz to get the same vitamins as one pint of Old Totalovski's..."
I was thinking ahead of myself again. Before we had good, reliable safe drinking water, it was better to drink the beer. Water born vectors still take out a good portion of people in developing countries.
Students visiting Mexico on Spring Break know this inherently: Don't drink the water...drink the beer.
A friend who researched the education of the founding fathers (she spent a ton of time reading diaries, etc.) told me that the morning meal for many a US patriot was a cup of ale. Apparently the ale they drank was a lot heavier and meal like than what we drink today.
It makes sense. In the days before chlorinated water and refrigerator, ale would have been one of the more reliable ways of preserving foods.
Gosh, what an ground breaking, original idea. Schools could have like a library...but for multimedia type stuff. It might be called something like maybe a "Multimedia Library."
This is like ground breaking in the original idea department!!!!!
The main challenge in this article is how to make licenses that allow a member library to distribute copies of works among their members.
The libraries could probably go a long way if they simply had a kiosk system that allowed only one copy of a song to play at a given moment.
Such a program would really just be an extension of the libraries that already exist on campuses...so maybe it is not all that unique.
One of the kewl things about libraries is that they often collect tunes from less known sources.
Agreed, such lawsuits are good for opening the market. Ultimately, however, the market will be best served and maintained by building a manufacturing base that provides OS free machines.
This is more than just the hobby market. Large businesses that want to handle their software licensing separate from the equipment fit in the market as well.
Unfortunately, lawsuits are occasionally necessary in business, but I think people need to keep a focus on what they are building, not just what they are tearing down.
Well, let's say you spent $400 on the box, and sued the store and got $199.00. Well, that is bascially a 50% discount.
The great thing about getting $199 (the full price of the software) from the vendor is that you get substantially more for the software than what the vendor paid...translation: free equipment.
The lawsuit is an interesting approach.
If your aim is simply to reduce your contribution to Bill Gate's wealth, you best approach is to buy your hardware from the few companies that make OS free, or Linux dedicated boxes.
In a thousand years, when the world is populated by sterile eunuches produced in test tubes, who will be there to preserve all the pornography and p3n1s enlarging offers that dominate the Internet today!!!! Our culture will be lost!!!!
As for the technology and software, there seems to be a great deal of preservation of crafts that go on today. There are people who have hand looms, spinning wheels, drop spindles, and all sorts of traditional fare.
For that matter, as increased productivity spins more and more workers out of the market, I suspect we will see a large increase in the number of people working traditional crafts to scrape out a living.
The preservation of the past is really a natural habit of people. We really don't need great social leaders like Grady Booch to lecture the world on the matter.
Microsoft is already doing this. Each version of a new MS operating system and office product generally includes a pretty much unedited copy of the previous copy of all prior editions of the software. So they are preserving history.
Each new version, the software gets bigger and bigger and biggers. It is an archealogical wonder in itself. Another name for this coding style is called bloat. Linux has many of the same things going on.
This argument about the need to preserve prior formats has been around for quite awhile. The truth of the matter is that software is largely an evolutionary process. Most file formats build upon the past, so there is a tendency for software to naturally preserve its path.
Of course, for Grady Booch, who wants to be reconized as an intellectual giant a thousand years from now, the main question is if his name will invoke the same awe as say Euclid and Archimedes. He is, after all, one of the trinity of OO modeling approaches.
Personally, I prefer to send my SOS to the World in a hundred billion bottles.
Of course the coast guard is mad at me 'cause my hundred billion bottles tend to wash up on the shore.
Every idea has its Sting.
Bamboo is also flamable...which leaves out common activities like jumping through flaming hoops, or over a burning tar pit. Being made of wood, I really wouldn't want to ride a bamboo bike while juggling chainsaws. There are lots of arguments against bamboo bikes.
Personally, I would love to see more natural fibers in bikes. Rather than making the whole bike from bamboo, making just a few pieces helps reduce the consumption from the titanium mines.
Sig: Flamable materials are dangerous, which is why I always make sure the products I buy are clearly marked as "inflamable."
Yeah, well you might live in a fantasy land where talent and creativity are the prime components of a good film...
But IBM is better placed to synergize the business potential of the graphics medium. Personally, I can't wait to see what will happen with the structural dynamics of Rational Rose hits the big screen in an animated short.