A strange kind of theft, that leaves the world with more net economic value than it contained before the crime.
"economic value" as defined by those that benefit more from it, sure. But why should the working poor agree to the same definition of economic value where they didn't get a good deal?
Did you ever consider that socialism is also using force as a means of defense? The safety net built by social policies is a defense line against the unexpected and the lottery of life, that gives different opportunities and starting points to each one. People entering the social contract are exerting their right to self-defense through collaboration.
It's also using force to defend the common, which is a form of shared property agreed upon by members of the society. If you avoid paying your due tax as agreed by the legal elected representatives, you're using force and/or deceit against the shared property; the state has all the right to send the police to avoid you hurting your peers; the money taken for taxes from your bank account was not yours to begin with, since your peers didn't agree to recognize your property over it.
So your 'big difference' is not clear-cut, it's a matter of opinion and of the social constructs that people will recognize as valid. I'm not in favor of government micro-management, but I don't think the "government intervention is coercion" is a valid line of reasoning - at least when dealing with representative democratic governments.
That argument is idiotic, in the sense that it ignores the main reason why one identifies as gay - which is when the sex you get arousal with is your same sex.
Note that in all your posts in this thread you use 'being gay' as an identity, but you carefully left out 'being aroused by someone of the same sex', something that can't be chosen and which is what people usually call being gay. One can be "open to the idea that things may be different tomorrow" and not "feel that they have not other choice but to be gay", and still be gay without having mad a deliberate choice - because he only gets aroused by men, and no amount of open-mindedness nor willingness to change can avoid that. Your argument precludes that possibility, which happens to be the experience of many (nearly all)? gay men.
Thatâ(TM)s always been enough for me. Never got into all this tagging/meta data stuff. If thereâ(TM)s anything Iâ(TM)d ever want to search on... I put it in the file name. Indexed every night via slocate.
Do you realize that folders + slocate indexing is logically equivalent to tagging&metadata search?
I've seen plenty of articles myself which I'm 100% certain are factually inaccurate, and I can name the inaccuracies - but I can't find an appropriate citation. So any correction I make is likely to have a very limited life expectancy.
Even in that case where your edits would likely be reverted, you still must make it and/or discuss it in the talk page.
Wikipedia is designed for that eventuality; it exposes not only the article's contents but the process by which editors arrived to them. If you know for true a fact but can't provide references, explaining that in the talk page will expose the situation to future researchers.
Someone really interested will read through the talk archives or even the change logs to find what has been discussed for inclusion and what has been rejected. Scholars could read your comment in the future and be able to cross-reference with other sources, finally being able to assess its accuracy.
Self-reply to log my acquired understanding. Reading TFA helps!
Those clever guys don't advocate a separate internet. The/. summary misleads over the meanings of the document. Go figure!
What they're calling for is a separate analysis of the open net and the special services while doing legislation, so that the needs of the second will be balanced against those of the first. Negotiations in the current state aren't taking the needs of the open net into account, since the lack of this distinction is mudding the discourse.
Why wouldn't an open Internet succeed on its merits alone? Because the situation is completely different now than it was in the 90's.
Then you had a limited technology by which vendors had to live, an that was at the same capacity level of bandwidth and processing power than the real thing. Also the possibilities of the new medium were mostly unknown (yes you had a well-established Usenet and e-mail which was mostly used by academia types, but there wasn't anything for the general masses and businesses). Everyone had to experiment and create their own new types of services and technology. In that context it was only logical that an open model trumped the walled gardens.
Look at the situation now. Governments over the world can't wait to find good ways to establish censoring procedures "for the children", that can easily and silently block political discourse. ISPs cap or throttle connections for unwanted applications, to which users are helpless. Media-content companies would do anything, including buying laws, to promote their content above all competitors, which includes user-generated content and sharing as well as other media companies.
The open Internet only continues to exist nowadays because it shares cables and protocols with those corporate services. Separating it from them would be its dead sentence. How longer do you think it would survive with only 1% of the "special services" bandwidth, government-approved black/white lists, and the companies immediately tivoizing and walled-gardening into their services any possible new breakthrough service that the open network would ideate?
I can't understand the reasons why people like Bruce Perens or David Reed, with wide experience in the field, would think this separation is a good idea.
Yeah, that too. I remember seeing a movie about T-Rex in a original IMAX 3D dome. It was like being right in an archaeological excavation at the Rocky Mountains. The technology in the dome is much better than what we get in theaters nowadays.
The whole point in that film was creating a story based on the 'open window' effect in the bodies of the characters. If you didn't pay attention to the perspective then you missed all the novelty the short film had. The story didn't stand by itself beside being a 'cute thing' if you strip it of this innovation.
I agree image quality alone could still provide a to movies. But that's not to say that 3D doesn't get you anything. Everyday scenes feel much more natural when watched in 3D, even if the effect is no longer consciously perceived after a few minutes of watching; this would benefit 'european style' drama much more than it does for Hollywood blockbusters.
IMO this Pixar film proves that new possibilities for this technique in storytelling do exist, but we haven't got the "Citizen Kane" for 3D yet.
Did you see the Pixar short film Day & Night shown before Toy Story 3D? That's what I call advancing the storytelling process. The film explored the 3D technique in a way that was not possible with cinematographic idioms developed for 2D.
For what I know of recent neurobiology development, the brain seems to work the opposite way: logical thinking is ultimately ground on emotions. You know how sound reasoning always depends of the set of chosen axioms? Well, what axioms you choose is dependent on how you feel about their logical implications. That's why it's so difficult to change someone's ideology even if you contradict their core beliefs - they will keep looking for logical - or illogical, but feel-good reasons as to why their ideals are the right ones.
In your description you confront "emotional responses" to "what you want", but what you want is also emotion driven. You may override that instant "evolutionary defined emotional responses" with reason, but that's because you anticipate how you would feel later if you betrayed your principles. So what's in conflict here is immediate vs long-term reward, not logic vs emotion. Your wants have been given to you by a long training, and you learn best what your emotions says it matters most.
That girl you cite that never felt happy would still have a motivation to avoid feeling sad or hurt. People without emotion would have no reason at all to act. Why would you keep living without an emotion to do so? Reason says you're going to die anyway sooner or later.
The title car (in the book, not the movie) behaved like that. It was full of gadgets and whistles, but when it (she?) though one was useful at the current situation it wouldn't (well, almost never) launch it on its own. It just flashed some light over the appropriate handle in the control panel, and the decision to activate the feature was on the driver. Children loved it.
This is how well-mannered smart agents should behave (and no, a giant paper clip talking about nonsense does not qualify).
And that, dear children, is the reason why Capitalism does not find the optimal solution for the consumers of the world. Purchase process != usage process.
Consumerism is tailored for sales; user's needs is just but one factor in the equation (certainly influential but not decisive).
Slashdot Mirror
Obligatory... hope they can't figure how to open doors.
Great! But does it have all the characteristics required to compete with the Arduino?
I've seen only technical bullet points in TFA, and technical bullet points are not the reason why the Arduino matters.
If they have a problem with people exercising the freedoms they granted them, why did they give that freedom in the first place?
Can you detect the ironc of that sentence?
"economic value" as defined by those that benefit more from it, sure. But why should the working poor agree to the same definition of economic value where they didn't get a good deal?
Can you point out which MIT project are you referring to? I've found SIKULI but I'm not sure whether it's the same one you're describing.
Did you ever consider that socialism is also using force as a means of defense? The safety net built by social policies is a defense line against the unexpected and the lottery of life, that gives different opportunities and starting points to each one. People entering the social contract are exerting their right to self-defense through collaboration.
It's also using force to defend the common, which is a form of shared property agreed upon by members of the society. If you avoid paying your due tax as agreed by the legal elected representatives, you're using force and/or deceit against the shared property; the state has all the right to send the police to avoid you hurting your peers; the money taken for taxes from your bank account was not yours to begin with, since your peers didn't agree to recognize your property over it.
So your 'big difference' is not clear-cut, it's a matter of opinion and of the social constructs that people will recognize as valid. I'm not in favor of government micro-management, but I don't think the "government intervention is coercion" is a valid line of reasoning - at least when dealing with representative democratic governments.
That argument is idiotic, in the sense that it ignores the main reason why one identifies as gay - which is when the sex you get arousal with is your same sex.
Note that in all your posts in this thread you use 'being gay' as an identity, but you carefully left out 'being aroused by someone of the same sex', something that can't be chosen and which is what people usually call being gay. One can be "open to the idea that things may be different tomorrow" and not "feel that they have not other choice but to be gay", and still be gay without having mad a deliberate choice - because he only gets aroused by men, and no amount of open-mindedness nor willingness to change can avoid that. Your argument precludes that possibility, which happens to be the experience of many (nearly all)? gay men.
Do you realize that folders + slocate indexing is logically equivalent to tagging&metadata search?
I've seen plenty of articles myself which I'm 100% certain are factually inaccurate, and I can name the inaccuracies - but I can't find an appropriate citation. So any correction I make is likely to have a very limited life expectancy.
Even in that case where your edits would likely be reverted, you still must make it and/or discuss it in the talk page.
Wikipedia is designed for that eventuality; it exposes not only the article's contents but the process by which editors arrived to them. If you know for true a fact but can't provide references, explaining that in the talk page will expose the situation to future researchers.
Someone really interested will read through the talk archives or even the change logs to find what has been discussed for inclusion and what has been rejected. Scholars could read your comment in the future and be able to cross-reference with other sources, finally being able to assess its accuracy.
I'd expect that 3 Kinects would make 4D video.
Self-reply to log my acquired understanding. Reading TFA helps!
Those clever guys don't advocate a separate internet. The /. summary misleads over the meanings of the document. Go figure!
What they're calling for is a separate analysis of the open net and the special services while doing legislation, so that the needs of the second will be balanced against those of the first. Negotiations in the current state aren't taking the needs of the open net into account, since the lack of this distinction is mudding the discourse.
Why wouldn't an open Internet succeed on its merits alone? Because the situation is completely different now than it was in the 90's.
Then you had a limited technology by which vendors had to live, an that was at the same capacity level of bandwidth and processing power than the real thing. Also the possibilities of the new medium were mostly unknown (yes you had a well-established Usenet and e-mail which was mostly used by academia types, but there wasn't anything for the general masses and businesses). Everyone had to experiment and create their own new types of services and technology. In that context it was only logical that an open model trumped the walled gardens.
Look at the situation now. Governments over the world can't wait to find good ways to establish censoring procedures "for the children", that can easily and silently block political discourse. ISPs cap or throttle connections for unwanted applications, to which users are helpless. Media-content companies would do anything, including buying laws, to promote their content above all competitors, which includes user-generated content and sharing as well as other media companies.
The open Internet only continues to exist nowadays because it shares cables and protocols with those corporate services. Separating it from them would be its dead sentence. How longer do you think it would survive with only 1% of the "special services" bandwidth, government-approved black/white lists, and the companies immediately tivoizing and walled-gardening into their services any possible new breakthrough service that the open network would ideate?
I can't understand the reasons why people like Bruce Perens or David Reed, with wide experience in the field, would think this separation is a good idea.
Apple oficially ignored Android for some time. Recently they laughed of their fragmentation. Now Apple is attacking Google for its openness.
You know what comes last.
Yeah, that too. I remember seeing a movie about T-Rex in a original IMAX 3D dome. It was like being right in an archaeological excavation at the Rocky Mountains. The technology in the dome is much better than what we get in theaters nowadays.
s/provide a to movies/provide an improvement to watching movies/
I did push preview but I didn't read the content.
The whole point in that film was creating a story based on the 'open window' effect in the bodies of the characters. If you didn't pay attention to the perspective then you missed all the novelty the short film had. The story didn't stand by itself beside being a 'cute thing' if you strip it of this innovation.
I agree image quality alone could still provide a to movies. But that's not to say that 3D doesn't get you anything. Everyday scenes feel much more natural when watched in 3D, even if the effect is no longer consciously perceived after a few minutes of watching; this would benefit 'european style' drama much more than it does for Hollywood blockbusters.
IMO this Pixar film proves that new possibilities for this technique in storytelling do exist, but we haven't got the "Citizen Kane" for 3D yet.
Did you see the Pixar short film Day & Night shown before Toy Story 3D? That's what I call advancing the storytelling process. The film explored the 3D technique in a way that was not possible with cinematographic idioms developed for 2D.
I like it. "Liberty Writer" has a good ring to it.
Thanks for remembering me!
For what I know of recent neurobiology development, the brain seems to work the opposite way: logical thinking is ultimately ground on emotions. You know how sound reasoning always depends of the set of chosen axioms? Well, what axioms you choose is dependent on how you feel about their logical implications. That's why it's so difficult to change someone's ideology even if you contradict their core beliefs - they will keep looking for logical - or illogical, but feel-good reasons as to why their ideals are the right ones.
In your description you confront "emotional responses" to "what you want", but what you want is also emotion driven. You may override that instant "evolutionary defined emotional responses" with reason, but that's because you anticipate how you would feel later if you betrayed your principles. So what's in conflict here is immediate vs long-term reward, not logic vs emotion. Your wants have been given to you by a long training, and you learn best what your emotions says it matters most.
That girl you cite that never felt happy would still have a motivation to avoid feeling sad or hurt. People without emotion would have no reason at all to act. Why would you keep living without an emotion to do so? Reason says you're going to die anyway sooner or later.
The title car (in the book, not the movie) behaved like that. It was full of gadgets and whistles, but when it (she?) though one was useful at the current situation it wouldn't (well, almost never) launch it on its own. It just flashed some light over the appropriate handle in the control panel, and the decision to activate the feature was on the driver. Children loved it.
This is how well-mannered smart agents should behave (and no, a giant paper clip talking about nonsense does not qualify).
And that, dear children, is the reason why Capitalism does not find the optimal solution for the consumers of the world. Purchase process != usage process.
Consumerism is tailored for sales; user's needs is just but one factor in the equation (certainly influential but not decisive).
That would require having someone physically at the same place. Like inviting a friend to his basement, or something. Not going to happen soon.