Re:Need to shine a little experimental light.
on
Black Holes Disputed
·
· Score: 1
Umm... I did read the article. Thanks for the condescension.
It's just that I missed any mention of how to tell whether a "black hole" candidate is a singularity or a gravastar by some predictable/detectable/measurable emission. From what I read, they look basically identical from the outside. Postulating how gravastars "might" explain strange BH-associated phenomena doesn't count.
When the new model leads to new experiments, THEN I'll accept that we have a "good idea of how to look for these things." Until then, it's still a theoretical debate.
Need to shine a little experimental light.
on
Black Holes Disputed
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
All this sounds a bit like philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Unfortunately, the lack of an empirical solution (just go an look at one) is holding us back from really nailing down the true nature of "black holes".
What I do find interesting is that this gravastar model, like the black hole model, implies that the universe and black holes/gravastars are similar in nature: that they belong to the same class of objects. It is a wonderful puzzle to look into a black hole wondering "what's IN there", when the answer might be something that has qualities similar to the life-cycle of our own cosmos.
Until we get some solid predictions about ways to differentiate one from the other, this is going to be a purely theoretical debate. Hopefully someone can advance the debate into the experimental realm soon. Maybe the new gravitational observatories can "shed some light" on this shadowy subject.;)
One of the best (and longest) comments I've read in a while. I like the idea of thinking of "group mind" strategies leading to coordinating laws and a procedural(managerial?) mindset.
The difference now is that there is the potential for groups to make better decisions faster, due to increased access to information, lower transmission latency, and higher bandwidth. If we work to incorporate this improved information technology into the culture of decision-making, we can revolutionize all aspect of the human condition.
Why? Because intelligent/appropriate choices require two things: situational awareness and clear goals. Both of these things CAN be improved if we break away from the old procedures and laws. That is to say, we can make a better game by adapting or ignoring the rules of the old game.
Just so you know, I added a comment about a possible decision-making approach that a Principled Anarchy could use. Check the "Polls + Vote != Democracy" comment.
I would just like to point out something that should be obvious: voting is not democracy. Filling in a multiple-guess form is not democracy. Why not? Because unless your opinions fit neatly in an HB-pencilled dot, there is a lot that you aren't contributing.
I find most polls of limited use, and trying to govern by InterWeb Poll is ludicrous. The power of polls lies in their design. The only use you get from this kind of data is getting an answer to your questions: the questions themselves have to be useful ones. If they are basically rhetorical "do you believe in free speech/quality & affordable medicare/etc.", then all they do is support the bias of the pollster and their client.
Real democracy must resort to the Greek mode of public forums, debate, and the free flow of information. The InterWeb can help with this, but it is only the SPACE we work in, not the work itself, not the people needed to perform the work. Anarchy/Democracy doesn't require that everyone speak at the same time, just that the full range of opinions be expressed. When I see something I agree with on Slashdot, I tend to say to myself "well, there's not much I can add here, except maybe a few minor points" and feel satisfied that my opinions are well represented, even though it wasn't me presenting them.
I think the functional aspects of Anarchy require a kind of redundant opinion-generating and -filtering system (sound familiar?). Make sure all points of view are represented (even the crackpot ones) and available to the decision-makers.
In my little "atopia", these decision-makers would be ones interested in, committed to, and qualified for creating policy within one domain or another (scale isn't important). They wouldn't be "more equal than others", because the entire world could look over their shoulder, if necessary. Kind of a new class of Advocate/Mediator/Notary that would replace politicians. They would be able to represent "special interests", as long as everything was transparent. This way everyone, including poverty groups, environmentalists, industry groups, and communities could be represented.
Thanks for your reply. I like to hear someone debate my rants with both a critical mind and a little respect. Mind you, considering the response to my initial post, I'll take the bad with the good. (I even find the harsher criticism invigorating; I blush when someone catches me in a logical or factual error. But it keeps me sharp.)
Your point about wanting to control other people being "evil" is well taken. I don't think that I ever said that individuals must submit themselves to any particular order, though. I choose to think of the world as fundamentally anarchic, and any social systems we build on top of that are nevertheless rooted in it. You can't get away from the fact that once everything falls apart, all you're left with is the basic respect people have (or don't have) for each other. It's not that Anarchism is always better than another *ism, but I think it has a greater potential to serve the needs of "the many and the one".
I would say that the quality of Anarchy in any society reflects the values of the society. That is, when The Man isn't watching, how closely do people follow the unwritten rules of society? Are you gonna loot that store down the road? Are you gonna kill your neighbour's yappy dog? Are you gonna help that old lady to cross the street? If you need constant threats to keep people in line, there is a real problem with your society. A lack of ethics in day-to-day interaction is not diminished by invoking "democracy" and "freedom" as if it were a mantra.
Of course, in the West, we are much more sophisticated these days. Instead of beating our people, we con them with marketing and scare them with The News. It amounts to the same thing.
I'm not the one seeking control. I don't care if others call themselves Anarchists and smash shit in the name of Anti-Globalism. That's not me. I think the real Anarchists (both Left and Right) need to work together to figure out the mechanics of a Principled Anarchy.
In the meantime, the only thing I do wish people would do is ask themselves "who benefits in a nation of politically passive consumers?"
"The costs should not boggle the mind. Petroleum infrastructure on the Earth will cost about one trillion dollars over the next decade and will be useless for producing energy when the oil runs out," argues SSI's Valentine. "A similar investment in SSPs built of non-terrestrial materials would give us an inexhaustible energy source and open the universe for settlement, too."
Exsqueeze me? First, all that oil infrastructure CAN be adapted to refine other hydrocarbon sources like bio fuels. Second, turning asteroids and lunar rock into lasers is probably going to cost a LOT more than a trillion dollars, and take a few decades. And what is all this "colonizing the galaxy" drivel?
I'm quite interested in radical ideas for H2 creation, and improving efficiency of conversion, and making hydrogen infrastructure work economically. Fusion would be nice, if they'd drop more than lunch money into the pot. But do we need to be focusing on building stuff in orbit to make something to put in the car?
This is just flat-out comical. Running around like chickens with their heads cut off, ranting about the sky falling (sorry for the mixed metaphor). These content/distribution guys are going to have a tough time trying to find some tiny victory they can point to... "See? We are still in control! Everything is O.K.. Please continue to invest in our obsolescent model."
I don't know what I would do if I was the King of Sony, but I think "throw it all up in the air and see how it lands" kinda sounds like a good approach. They need to just let the technology go where it's going, and try to catch up with revenue models that serve the technology.
They can try and kneecap the h/w and s/w if they want, but there are more minds working AGAINST them than for them. Resistance is futile! Embrace the chaos! Stop trying to defend the Alamo. Maybe the enemy will let you live.
I don't believe I indicated that this audience is immune to this behaviour. Geeks are as bad as anybody else. Nothing worse than a Geek on a power trip...;)
Thank you for the compliment. I was bracing for a flame.:)
I don't necessarily think that EVERYONE in society will contribute if given the tools to do so. I'm not even sure if a majority would. I think that the reason we have got to where we are in our "democratic experiment" is that people believe the world is too difficult to undertand, and they give up control to the experts.
The experts, of course, make their living making up arcana that nobody else can understand, developing opaque vocabularies and rituals, and generally placing themselves in a superior position because they think nobody could ever understand what they do. (Personally, I think economists are the worst of the bunch. Invisble Hand my ass!)
Experts will vigorously defend the barricades of their specialties from anyone who tries to connect their knowledge domain to a neighbouring one in an attempt to put together a bigger picture. We end up with a proliferation of narrowly-focused knowledge that doesn't lead to a general improvement of our "common knowledge".
The wall between "the sheep" and "the elite" is a figment of our collective imagination. Unfortunately, mass delusion is the fundamental basis of what is "real". Our world view is who we are, and vice versa. Ergo, we must shift the paradigm in order to change the world.
The main road block here is the process of buy-in. Things only get interesting when we reach a discontinuity... when everyone suddenly accepts what until that time has been "crazy". This is why revolutions are a boot-strap process: you have to convince a small core to believe your crazy idea, then send them to infect more people with the radical meme, and so on. I believe we have enough historical examples to support me on this one.
From my world view, all of our social conventions (including governments and economies) are built on ideas, which exist in the domain of chaos. So where does that leave us? We need only open our eyes and see that anarchy is the natural state of social being, and quit pretending we don't create our own world.
Your definition of "selfish" gets a little abstract. Am I selfish if I lead a life of austerity and sacrifice, so that in the end I will be remembered fondly by the community? By your definition, giving up something in pursuit of a better lot from an improved common good is selfish. I think you are stretching a point.
Taoists would say that a wise man who REALLY groks his own self-interest does not seek to raise himself above the others, since by so doing he invites attack.
Imagine two people acting like this, one a Machiavellian, the other a Taoist. Both end up contributing to and sharing in the common good in an objectively equivalent way: their behaviour is indistinguishable. Although their motivations and perspectives may be different, they are each wise enough to know that their best chance at "happiness" lies in serving the community.
I don't see how you can really call this selfishness. It is a balancing act between investment/sacrifice and profit/reward. Selfishness and wisdom are at odds, here.
The research may hold lessons for policymakers attempting to build social cohesion, he believes. Decisions may be more acceptable if they come from within the community and not from a remote central government. "There could be more community-based policing, and more emphasis on shaming [criminals] and rehabilitation within the community," Gintis says.
This is an example of what most elites have nightmares about... the "masses" deciding for themselves what to do, through concensus and free exchange of information. This is the horrible, to-be-avoided-at-all-costs thing that many refer to as "too much democracy". The key is this: it only works if those with an interest/stake both get a place at the table and the ability to punish people who waste their time with lies and greed.
I'm convinced this kind of democratic, community-oriented "anarchy" could work at any scale. As long as everyone feels they are part of something meaningful, and that everyone else is taking it seriously, then you can actually get "competitors" to agree on strategies to maximize the Common Good.
A major stumbling block has been the desire to "punish" criminals by sending them into isolation (or rather, creating isolated COMMUNITIES of criminals), instead of focusing on a more "healing" punishment which would require the community to confront, shame, and supervise the trangressors's rehabilitation.
For example, look at the pyros in Australia. Doesn't it just sound right that they should walk through the destruction, meet their victims, and generally confronted the effects of their crimes? Is it really better to lock them away where they can learn how to hate society even more? How can they be accepted into society again if they aren't genuinely seeking to make reparations?
Just like laughter--a social sanction against rigid codes of behaviour--punishment should bring people together. As weird as that sounds, everyone has to share in the duties of rewarding and punishing members of society: the only way to find a common good is to have everyone agree on it. Don't let anyone tell you that you should leave it to the "smarter/better" people to make this decision for everone else. What is best for those with privilege and power is not necessarily best for all.
Thank you Mr. A/C. I couldn't have put it better. Most people think I'm being too picky when I say I want XLR i/o. With this thing, it obviously doesn't matter, since nobody I know who makes serious studio noise would touch it. This is more hobbyist/consumer stuff, maybe home theatre-oriented.
I mean,
a) what the HELL is the point of 24bit/96kHz audio that comes out of MINI JACKS?!?,
and b) who wants to use USB for audio? The same people who want to edit video on ATA drives?
I wasn't dissing Richie, honest! I enjoyed his Final Scratch-enhanced performance at The Commodore here in Vancouver. And if was going to go back into the DJ thang, having two pieces of vinyl, a laptop, and a USB box would make for a really light travel package.
I'm just saying I like the raw techno. Playing off HD just isn't as unpredictable as a MIDI rig of various synths, samplers, and drum machines. Kind of like spinning CDs. Then again, if you want to make things interesting, you could use Windows...
Isn't this story a strong argument for XML as a storage/archival format? I mean, in 100 years, do you think they will have a problem reading a plain text file?
The only issue is the media then, and I'm sure we could make a smart choice when it came to that... BTW: How do you carve Unicode into stone tablets?
They are reasonably cheap (try finding a TR-909 for cheaper), and will look REALLY COOL on stage. Think about how the girls will swoon when you tilt that little flat panel monitor around so EVERYONE can see your sequencing software doing all the work.
Personally, I think computers on stage are tacky, but Richie Hawtin evidently thinks they're okay, since he's using Final Scratch these days...
Just make sure you have XLR outs. Do I even need to say that?
From what I've heard about LISA (and I've heard Kip Thorne talking about it, and it *is* his pet project), it is going to provide a mind-blowing view of the universe for cosmologists. The potential for gravity-based observatories seems unlimited... you can use all sorts of technologies to look at different parts of the spectrum, and you'll be able to see HELLA back in time in a way that EM scopes never could.
Forget about UV, X-RAY, IR, and RADIO telescopes (let alone visual ones... ugh); these babies are going to be the new uberTools of astronomy. If you postulate a satellite observatory the size of the solar system (quite do-able, even today), we could be opening a whole new chapter in our understanding of the cosmos.
The only thing that excites me more is the idea of sending probes to the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune to check out the geology (or xeology?). The fact that I'm going to be an old man by the time all this happens doesn't bother me a bit.
Only the Microdrive presently offers 1GB of storage, which is why it stands out from the crowd. That won't last long, though. SanDisk and Toshiba are already promising 1MB and 2MB flash cards by late next summer.
Why is it so impossible for supposed "technology writers" to get simple things like GB and MB straight? I mean, it's obvious what was meant, but c'mon! How can that slip past both the writer AND the editor? It's almost as bad as Slashdot, for chrissakes...
Regarding corporations, I think we should just go back to how it used to be before our time... corporations were *not* 'natural persons'. They were used for the sole purpose of limiting liability to the owners.. and their charter could (and would) be revoked if they stepped outside the lines of what that charter entailed.
The idea was a bunch of poeple could become a 'corporation' and say 'we're going to do x and y and z', and if it was agreeable, they would be granted a 'charter'..
Well said. The whole "natural person" thing is such bull. Some American judge a hundred years ago makes a completely unprecedented interpretation and now look where we are: corporations and conglomerates act with impunity, and let the lawyers handle the clean up. We have seen over and over that there is NO ethical standard that must be met in order to keep a charter. Be as criminal as you like, as long as you have well-connected board of directors and a good PR firm on your side.
It's just sick. It makes no sense. All it does is serve the interests of those dog-eat-dogs who look at the world as one giant fire hydrant.
There is also an interesting (and rare) genetic condition that affects only women: the eye gets a "bonus" colour that is either another red or green, with a sensitivity curve slightly offset from the other red/green. While there may not be much of a difference in the two curves, it does allow the eye/brain to be more sensitive to colours in that part of the spectrum. Another reason to think that maybe women DO see more colours than guys.
What you described sounds very cool. I have been thinking about this off and on for a few years, and it seems like there is a lot of potential here. Obviously, I don't see it replacing the command line or the desktop, but providing a larger metaphor into which these other metaphors can operate (question: what is the underlying metaphor for the command line? there has to be one, but I can't think of it... "incantation" maybe?).
One way to use a 3d system would be to represent an "attraction" between files, potentially based on any relationship, but I think it would be useful to use it to represent how often the user has moved from one file to the other. By tracking the creation/modification/deletion activities of the user(s) in this file space, the system could represent how files are connected to each other in ways that are impossible in a normal (hierarchical) system. This would require one hell of a lot of extra data, but who cares?
I would like to see some theoretical/abstract analyses of how a 3d space affects organization and interaction principles in interface design. I'm sure you could use really cool stuff like 3d sound, lighting, and other psychological effects to give the user cues about the values/relationships represented in the space.
I thought the article was interesting for about the first paragraph, after which it added no new interesting data. The one thing I pulled from it is that a "layered" set of desktops would be a better mnemonic than a file system. Maybe, maybe not.
What I think is interesting, is that we are still being bound to one (command line) or two (desktop metaphor) dimensions. Even the "transparent windows with funky drop shadows" environment is really only 2d. What about metaphors that depend on a third dimension? Instead of a desktop, we would have a "room". Navigating would require concepts of "on", "in", and "near", and there might be new ways of organizing data and tools.
Has anyone heard of a (obviously real-time) 3d file system? I've thought that it would be cool to have files reflect relationships to other files, previous versions, and dependant/source file locations. Might be a cool way to browse the Web, too.
And it's the skills to do that -- analysis, design, coding, object orientation, structured programming, design patterns, unit testing, extreme programming, documentation, communication, teamwork, etc. etc. -- that makes someone marketable in today's difficult climate
I suppose he's talking about the post-dot-bomb world we live in, but these are probably important at any time. Funny, though: a majority of programmers I've known--while intelligent and relentless--place less emphasis on the "documentation, communication, teamwork" skills. Of course, that's where technical writers and project managers come in handy... (heh heh)
One thing I've noticed about Perl people is that they are often very open-minded about using other languages to solve a problem. Maybe it's because they are so used to losing the "let's develop in Perl" argument, maybe because they are more naturally inclined to use every tool available, or maybe it's because they want to figure out a way to parse every computer language known to humanity from within a Perl module...
The only question that comes to mind:
"Will the U.S. Government now take this as a reason to rally around Microsoft, as a matter of national pride?"
I mean, I'm glad to see the rest of the world smartening up and kicking the MS habit, but unless the U.S. gives up it's vision of a global industry dominated by "their" companies (heh), I don't think they will push alternatives very hard.
Also, how deep are the ties between MS and the present Administration? That will make a big difference in how the Gov't treats MS.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just that I missed any mention of how to tell whether a "black hole" candidate is a singularity or a gravastar by some predictable/detectable/measurable emission. From what I read, they look basically identical from the outside. Postulating how gravastars "might" explain strange BH-associated phenomena doesn't count.
When the new model leads to new experiments, THEN I'll accept that we have a "good idea of how to look for these things." Until then, it's still a theoretical debate.
What I do find interesting is that this gravastar model, like the black hole model, implies that the universe and black holes/gravastars are similar in nature: that they belong to the same class of objects. It is a wonderful puzzle to look into a black hole wondering "what's IN there", when the answer might be something that has qualities similar to the life-cycle of our own cosmos.
Until we get some solid predictions about ways to differentiate one from the other, this is going to be a purely theoretical debate. Hopefully someone can advance the debate into the experimental realm soon. Maybe the new gravitational observatories can "shed some light" on this shadowy subject. ;)
What about a belt drive? Or a shaft drive if you really want some nano-torque?
These guys are living in the past, man!
The difference now is that there is the potential for groups to make better decisions faster, due to increased access to information, lower transmission latency, and higher bandwidth. If we work to incorporate this improved information technology into the culture of decision-making, we can revolutionize all aspect of the human condition.
Why? Because intelligent/appropriate choices require two things: situational awareness and clear goals. Both of these things CAN be improved if we break away from the old procedures and laws. That is to say, we can make a better game by adapting or ignoring the rules of the old game.
Just so you know, I added a comment about a possible decision-making approach that a Principled Anarchy could use. Check the "Polls + Vote != Democracy" comment.
I find most polls of limited use, and trying to govern by InterWeb Poll is ludicrous. The power of polls lies in their design. The only use you get from this kind of data is getting an answer to your questions: the questions themselves have to be useful ones. If they are basically rhetorical "do you believe in free speech/quality & affordable medicare/etc.", then all they do is support the bias of the pollster and their client.
Real democracy must resort to the Greek mode of public forums, debate, and the free flow of information. The InterWeb can help with this, but it is only the SPACE we work in, not the work itself, not the people needed to perform the work. Anarchy/Democracy doesn't require that everyone speak at the same time, just that the full range of opinions be expressed. When I see something I agree with on Slashdot, I tend to say to myself "well, there's not much I can add here, except maybe a few minor points" and feel satisfied that my opinions are well represented, even though it wasn't me presenting them.
I think the functional aspects of Anarchy require a kind of redundant opinion-generating and -filtering system (sound familiar?). Make sure all points of view are represented (even the crackpot ones) and available to the decision-makers.
In my little "atopia", these decision-makers would be ones interested in, committed to, and qualified for creating policy within one domain or another (scale isn't important). They wouldn't be "more equal than others", because the entire world could look over their shoulder, if necessary. Kind of a new class of Advocate/Mediator/Notary that would replace politicians. They would be able to represent "special interests", as long as everything was transparent. This way everyone, including poverty groups, environmentalists, industry groups, and communities could be represented.
Your point about wanting to control other people being "evil" is well taken. I don't think that I ever said that individuals must submit themselves to any particular order, though. I choose to think of the world as fundamentally anarchic, and any social systems we build on top of that are nevertheless rooted in it. You can't get away from the fact that once everything falls apart, all you're left with is the basic respect people have (or don't have) for each other. It's not that Anarchism is always better than another *ism, but I think it has a greater potential to serve the needs of "the many and the one".
I would say that the quality of Anarchy in any society reflects the values of the society. That is, when The Man isn't watching, how closely do people follow the unwritten rules of society? Are you gonna loot that store down the road? Are you gonna kill your neighbour's yappy dog? Are you gonna help that old lady to cross the street? If you need constant threats to keep people in line, there is a real problem with your society. A lack of ethics in day-to-day interaction is not diminished by invoking "democracy" and "freedom" as if it were a mantra.
Of course, in the West, we are much more sophisticated these days. Instead of beating our people, we con them with marketing and scare them with The News. It amounts to the same thing.
I'm not the one seeking control. I don't care if others call themselves Anarchists and smash shit in the name of Anti-Globalism. That's not me. I think the real Anarchists (both Left and Right) need to work together to figure out the mechanics of a Principled Anarchy.
In the meantime, the only thing I do wish people would do is ask themselves "who benefits in a nation of politically passive consumers?"
Exsqueeze me? First, all that oil infrastructure CAN be adapted to refine other hydrocarbon sources like bio fuels. Second, turning asteroids and lunar rock into lasers is probably going to cost a LOT more than a trillion dollars, and take a few decades. And what is all this "colonizing the galaxy" drivel?
I'm quite interested in radical ideas for H2 creation, and improving efficiency of conversion, and making hydrogen infrastructure work economically. Fusion would be nice, if they'd drop more than lunch money into the pot. But do we need to be focusing on building stuff in orbit to make something to put in the car?
I don't know what I would do if I was the King of Sony, but I think "throw it all up in the air and see how it lands" kinda sounds like a good approach. They need to just let the technology go where it's going, and try to catch up with revenue models that serve the technology.
They can try and kneecap the h/w and s/w if they want, but there are more minds working AGAINST them than for them. Resistance is futile! Embrace the chaos! Stop trying to defend the Alamo. Maybe the enemy will let you live.
I don't believe I indicated that this audience is immune to this behaviour. Geeks are as bad as anybody else. Nothing worse than a Geek on a power trip... ;)
I don't necessarily think that EVERYONE in society will contribute if given the tools to do so. I'm not even sure if a majority would. I think that the reason we have got to where we are in our "democratic experiment" is that people believe the world is too difficult to undertand, and they give up control to the experts.
The experts, of course, make their living making up arcana that nobody else can understand, developing opaque vocabularies and rituals, and generally placing themselves in a superior position because they think nobody could ever understand what they do. (Personally, I think economists are the worst of the bunch. Invisble Hand my ass!)
Experts will vigorously defend the barricades of their specialties from anyone who tries to connect their knowledge domain to a neighbouring one in an attempt to put together a bigger picture. We end up with a proliferation of narrowly-focused knowledge that doesn't lead to a general improvement of our "common knowledge".
The wall between "the sheep" and "the elite" is a figment of our collective imagination. Unfortunately, mass delusion is the fundamental basis of what is "real". Our world view is who we are, and vice versa. Ergo, we must shift the paradigm in order to change the world.
The main road block here is the process of buy-in. Things only get interesting when we reach a discontinuity... when everyone suddenly accepts what until that time has been "crazy". This is why revolutions are a boot-strap process: you have to convince a small core to believe your crazy idea, then send them to infect more people with the radical meme, and so on. I believe we have enough historical examples to support me on this one.
From my world view, all of our social conventions (including governments and economies) are built on ideas, which exist in the domain of chaos. So where does that leave us? We need only open our eyes and see that anarchy is the natural state of social being, and quit pretending we don't create our own world.
It's just a big human game. It really is.
Taoists would say that a wise man who REALLY groks his own self-interest does not seek to raise himself above the others, since by so doing he invites attack.
Imagine two people acting like this, one a Machiavellian, the other a Taoist. Both end up contributing to and sharing in the common good in an objectively equivalent way: their behaviour is indistinguishable. Although their motivations and perspectives may be different, they are each wise enough to know that their best chance at "happiness" lies in serving the community.
I don't see how you can really call this selfishness. It is a balancing act between investment/sacrifice and profit/reward. Selfishness and wisdom are at odds, here.
This is an example of what most elites have nightmares about... the "masses" deciding for themselves what to do, through concensus and free exchange of information. This is the horrible, to-be-avoided-at-all-costs thing that many refer to as "too much democracy". The key is this: it only works if those with an interest/stake both get a place at the table and the ability to punish people who waste their time with lies and greed.
I'm convinced this kind of democratic, community-oriented "anarchy" could work at any scale. As long as everyone feels they are part of something meaningful, and that everyone else is taking it seriously, then you can actually get "competitors" to agree on strategies to maximize the Common Good.
A major stumbling block has been the desire to "punish" criminals by sending them into isolation (or rather, creating isolated COMMUNITIES of criminals), instead of focusing on a more "healing" punishment which would require the community to confront, shame, and supervise the trangressors's rehabilitation.
For example, look at the pyros in Australia. Doesn't it just sound right that they should walk through the destruction, meet their victims, and generally confronted the effects of their crimes? Is it really better to lock them away where they can learn how to hate society even more? How can they be accepted into society again if they aren't genuinely seeking to make reparations?
Just like laughter--a social sanction against rigid codes of behaviour--punishment should bring people together. As weird as that sounds, everyone has to share in the duties of rewarding and punishing members of society: the only way to find a common good is to have everyone agree on it. Don't let anyone tell you that you should leave it to the "smarter/better" people to make this decision for everone else. What is best for those with privilege and power is not necessarily best for all.
I mean,
a) what the HELL is the point of 24bit/96kHz audio that comes out of MINI JACKS?!?,
and b) who wants to use USB for audio? The same people who want to edit video on ATA drives?
I'm just saying I like the raw techno. Playing off HD just isn't as unpredictable as a MIDI rig of various synths, samplers, and drum machines. Kind of like spinning CDs. Then again, if you want to make things interesting, you could use Windows...
The only issue is the media then, and I'm sure we could make a smart choice when it came to that... BTW: How do you carve Unicode into stone tablets?
Personally, I think computers on stage are tacky, but Richie Hawtin evidently thinks they're okay, since he's using Final Scratch these days...
Just make sure you have XLR outs. Do I even need to say that?
Forget about UV, X-RAY, IR, and RADIO telescopes (let alone visual ones... ugh); these babies are going to be the new uberTools of astronomy. If you postulate a satellite observatory the size of the solar system (quite do-able, even today), we could be opening a whole new chapter in our understanding of the cosmos.
The only thing that excites me more is the idea of sending probes to the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune to check out the geology (or xeology?). The fact that I'm going to be an old man by the time all this happens doesn't bother me a bit.
Why is it so impossible for supposed "technology writers" to get simple things like GB and MB straight? I mean, it's obvious what was meant, but c'mon! How can that slip past both the writer AND the editor? It's almost as bad as Slashdot, for chrissakes...
The idea was a bunch of poeple could become a 'corporation' and say 'we're going to do x and y and z', and if it was agreeable, they would be granted a 'charter'..
Well said. The whole "natural person" thing is such bull. Some American judge a hundred years ago makes a completely unprecedented interpretation and now look where we are: corporations and conglomerates act with impunity, and let the lawyers handle the clean up. We have seen over and over that there is NO ethical standard that must be met in order to keep a charter. Be as criminal as you like, as long as you have well-connected board of directors and a good PR firm on your side.
It's just sick. It makes no sense. All it does is serve the interests of those dog-eat-dogs who look at the world as one giant fire hydrant.
There is also an interesting (and rare) genetic condition that affects only women: the eye gets a "bonus" colour that is either another red or green, with a sensitivity curve slightly offset from the other red/green. While there may not be much of a difference in the two curves, it does allow the eye/brain to be more sensitive to colours in that part of the spectrum. Another reason to think that maybe women DO see more colours than guys.
One way to use a 3d system would be to represent an "attraction" between files, potentially based on any relationship, but I think it would be useful to use it to represent how often the user has moved from one file to the other. By tracking the creation/modification/deletion activities of the user(s) in this file space, the system could represent how files are connected to each other in ways that are impossible in a normal (hierarchical) system. This would require one hell of a lot of extra data, but who cares?
I would like to see some theoretical/abstract analyses of how a 3d space affects organization and interaction principles in interface design. I'm sure you could use really cool stuff like 3d sound, lighting, and other psychological effects to give the user cues about the values/relationships represented in the space.
What I think is interesting, is that we are still being bound to one (command line) or two (desktop metaphor) dimensions. Even the "transparent windows with funky drop shadows" environment is really only 2d. What about metaphors that depend on a third dimension? Instead of a desktop, we would have a "room". Navigating would require concepts of "on", "in", and "near", and there might be new ways of organizing data and tools.
Has anyone heard of a (obviously real-time) 3d file system? I've thought that it would be cool to have files reflect relationships to other files, previous versions, and dependant/source file locations. Might be a cool way to browse the Web, too.
I suppose he's talking about the post-dot-bomb world we live in, but these are probably important at any time. Funny, though: a majority of programmers I've known--while intelligent and relentless--place less emphasis on the "documentation, communication, teamwork" skills. Of course, that's where technical writers and project managers come in handy... (heh heh)
One thing I've noticed about Perl people is that they are often very open-minded about using other languages to solve a problem. Maybe it's because they are so used to losing the "let's develop in Perl" argument, maybe because they are more naturally inclined to use every tool available, or maybe it's because they want to figure out a way to parse every computer language known to humanity from within a Perl module...
I mean, I'm glad to see the rest of the world smartening up and kicking the MS habit, but unless the U.S. gives up it's vision of a global industry dominated by "their" companies (heh), I don't think they will push alternatives very hard.
Also, how deep are the ties between MS and the present Administration? That will make a big difference in how the Gov't treats MS.