What if other projects adopt "no military" clauses like we've seen lately?
Then the government responds by mandating that all open source projects receiving government funding (not necessarily military related), or to be used in government projects, use a completely open license (as in no strings) like BSD, MIT, etc. This would dry up a lot of the money subsidizing GPL based projects.
Although I do not like this, I have a hard time saying it is wrong. I also recall (in the 90s, maybe they still do it) a NASA publication with pages of "ads" listing software projects that were freely available to anyone (individual or business) since they were NASA funded to some degree. I can't help but think this was how the government should work.
Xenix was launched on 16 bit CPUs in 1983. 32 bit support was added by 1987, so the 16 bit version was hardly ancient history by the time people were talking about 32 bits.
People really didn't start talking 32-bit until OS/2 2.0, what was that 94? 93 at the earliest? 1987 was ancient history. The masses didn't really start until Win95.
Under $100 for a 1G DDR2 stick at a local computerfair last week.
But that's hobbyists dinking with their own system. Dell upgrades a system from 1G to 2G for $130, 1G to 4G for $400. 1G seems standard on the higher end model, 512K on the lower end. Yeah, it will be a while before a generic box going out the door will have a 64-bit OS.
Only for DOS/Windows users. For Mac users it was largely a non-event, bar some software incompatibilities. Ditto most flavors of Unix.
Mac users were always 32-bit. If you meant Apple users, well they went from 8-bit to 32-bit. The 16-bit Apple//'s came after the Mac. Or are you referring to 32-bit addressing? Macs have always had 32-bit registers but the high order 8-bits of the address registers were ignored. The latter led to some bad practices, storing data in this byte, that broke some programs when Apple began implementing 32-bit addressing.
Not ditto for Unix. The 16/32-bit transition had merely occured much earlier. It was "ancient" history by the time most people began talking about 32-bit.
US Asian immigrants today may be better educated, but in the past there were vast numbers of poor Asian and European immigrants and they all worked there asses off to get ahead and get their children educated so that children would not have to work as they did. The impoverished seeing an opportunity *is* a common thread, the difference is merely one of time and location.
I think you overstate the cultural. Growing up impoverished and then being offered an escape route through hard work, and striving to better educate your children so that they have an advantage is a pretty *universal* story. This story is part of my European heritage and it seems pretty common.
The salary-men/samurai analogy is bogus. The samuai were an elite, of high ranking social status. The salary-men are more comparable to the merchant class of classical Japan and low (but not bottom) on the social scale, and the salary-men know this.
It is not "Asian parents". These "Asian parents" are not really acting differntly than the European immigrant great/grand parents of my family and many others. It is not that these "Asian parents" have higher standards per se, it is that normal society has much lower standards these days.
Your qualifications about the immorality of the situation do indeed prevent the above quote from being a totally asinine statement, but you're hanging on by your fingernails. You agree that what is occuring is morally wrong.
You seem to have strong fingernails as well.:-) Morality is not universal. Each society determines what is moral. For example it may very well be that a worker in China would consider 60 hours a moral option. Stress "option". I also assume that the working environment would be safe, clean, and otherwise healthy. Perhaps these assumptions are universal morals, however a 40 week is not necessarily one.
Since grandfathers are a popular example in this discussion today I'll toss out the perspective of one of mine. He had a decent blue collar job that he could raise his family on given a simple lifestyle. That's about all 40 hours a week offered. However he accepted every opportunity for overtime he could get so that he could send his two kids to college and get a few household luxury items. 60 hours a week was not immoral to him, he was thankful for the opportunity to "get ahead".
I recall seeing a documentary, "A Decent Factory: Made In China", that followed a team sent by Nokia to their suppliers in order to conduct an ethical evaluation. To measure compliance with local laws and contractual obligations governing worker treatment. You are being a little harsh on the capitalists, especially the foreign ones. They may be doing more to protect workers than local industrialists and government.
Given the government's communist nature I would have expected that workers would be treated more fairly (yeah, naive, I guess it was more that communists would be disinclined to favor industrialists). However, communist or not, China seems to be at the early stage of industrialization where the local industrialists are in bed with government and can get away with nearly anything(*). I recall a lawyer who represents "peasants" who were injured in factories. Injured as in their hand was crushed by machinery. The Chinese industrialists investigate and determine that the worker violated safety rules and is therefore owed nothing. The government, in the form of local police, beat up for "peasant's" lawyer when the worker wants to take the industrialists to court.
(*) I'm not suggesting that in the west industrialists are not in bed with governments, both left and right leaning, just that there are laws on the books that do get enforced. A artifact of unionization and other social movements, a later stage of industrialism that China has yet to reach.
His belief is predicated upon the notion that the move to 64 bit computing means people are about to make choices about the next generation of operating systems.
Then this writing fails. 64-bit OSs as overrated and overhyped. The move from 16- to 32-bit was dramatic. A lot of people, including those around here, seem to naively believe the move from 32- to 64-bit will be a similar event. It will not. 64-bit will be meaningful for some servers and some other high end applications, for the rest there will be no appreciable immediate benefit. *IF* Joe User gets all excited about 64-bit in the near term it will probably be due to a successful Micorosoft marketing campaign designed to artificially create an upgrade cycle. Barring this there will be a slow migration to 64-bit as Apple and Microsoft make the 64-bit versions of their OSs the default version, not an optional upgrade. In other words Joe User will get 64-bit when he happens to buy some distant new machine (4-5 years ?). The near term upgrades and build-to-order options will be a minority. I'll do it, I'm a programmer, I want my code to be 32/64-bit clean.
"To prove there is no God we must prove a negative"
However, there is no evidence that any god exists. It is anti-intellectual to presume a god exists with a complete and total lack of evidence. Of all the useful intellectual tools developed over history, the most useful has been Occam's Razor.
I also wrote: "When one says science and religion are incomaptible, one is exercising a leap of faith just like the most fundamentalist literal interpreter of the bible. I think neither extreme has it right. Of course I have no proof.;-)"
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not trolling, I think your anti-intellectual statement is leaning towards the other end of the extremist spectrum and that your opinion is a leap of faith. In truth many great intellectuals in history have been religous, as have many great scientists. As for the most useful intellectual tool, Occam's Razor is pretty damn good, but an open mind is even more important.
"No, I'm not taking the topic change bait. The point in my first post was that pacifists need non-pacifists to protect them. That point stands, that pacifists and non-pacifists have achieved great things is a different topic."
You said that "Ghandi and King prove my point that pacifists need non-pacifists to protect them, they were both murdered."
Non sequitor. Ghandi and King could have been protected by a bullet-proof vest, a non-violent body guard taking the bullet, an arrest of the perpetrator before the crime was committed -- any number of non-violent events could have prevented thier murders. Violent action against the murderers wasn't guaranteed to save their lives, either. They weren't *destined* to be murdered. You have made a basic error in logic.
You are mistaken, no purely pacifist action can prevent a determined murder. Only force can do so. Some of your examples would merely alter the method of attack. Some are non-sensical, the body guard takes the bullet? In this case a pacifist still dies, you merely change which one. Prior arrest? Arrest involves force and violence, to be implemented by non-pacifists, exactly my point. Nice try with the "not guaranteed" straw man, no one claimed protection is 100%.
Science and religion are not incompatible. Long ago I attended a California state university, the dean of the chemistry department was a Roman Catholic priest. A local parish priest as a matter of fact. There are extremists on both sides, the notion that hard science and religion are incompatible is just propoganda. Many of the most famous scientists in history were also religious.
To prove there is no God we must prove a negative, which math and science itself says cannot be done. Where science and religion collide is in the acceptance of theories, evolution for example. Evolution is a theory, a widely accepted and highly plausible one, but still a theory. Even if evolution is historically accurate science cannot prove God was not a guiding factor in its direction, i.e. evolution being God's mechanism of creation. A "day" in genesis not being the 24-hour period we know and love. God was after all communicating with primitive sheep herders when Genesis was written, he would probably use different words when communicating with a modern biologist. When one says science and religion are incomaptible, one is exercising a leap of faith just like the most fundamentalist literal interpreter of the bible. I think neither extreme has it right. Of course I have no proof.;-)
From the Vatican Observatory:
"Analyzing the space rocks, or training the Vatican Observatory's $3 million Arizona telescope on a distant galaxy, are both ways of gaining 'a closer appreciation of the personality of the creator', he said in an interview."
Often there is an intent to make military weapons which seriously injure rather than kill. (Especially if the injuries are life threating but treatable.) Wounding a solider is likely to remove three soldiers from the battle.
Serious injury is not the goal of non-lethal weapons, not even mild injury, not permanent injury. What you describe is a less than 100% potential kill rate for lethal weapons, and whether 100% is a goal for lethal weapons. Zero percent is the goal for non-lethal weapons.
You're looking at this backwards. (I think it's because you know this destroys your argument.)
The fact that they were both murdered is irrelevant to the discussion. They accomplished great things *specifically because* of their non-violent resistance.
No, I'm not taking the topic change bait. The point in my first post was that pacifists need non-pacifists to protect them. That point stands, that pacifists and non-pacifists have achieved great things is a different topic.
Didn't Ghandi's non-violent resistance overthrow British rule of India? Didn't Martin Luther King's adoption of the same tactics get blacks their civil rights in Ameriac?
Ghandi and King prove my point that pacifists need non-pacifists to protect them, they were both murdered. Whether or not these men accomplished anything before their untimely demises is a differnt topic. Although a related topic may be what other great things could they have accomplished if they had more non-pacifists to protect them.
Well, someone had better tell Gandi that he failed. Because it looks to me an awful lot like pacifism managed to win a country its freedom. Which, of course, couldn't have happened, or your 100% comment is false (along with your underlying implication).
You are changing the topic. Notice the subject line, the point was that pacifism only works to protect an individual when there are non-pacifists around to protect the pacifists. Ghandi's murder actually demonstates this point, thank you for the assist.
Ghandi's first mission was to free India from the rule of England. He suceeded in that regard. You can't be 100% sucessful all of the time. But his success does demonstrate that a pacifist movement is not a useless gesture.
Thank you for playing.
Nice try but earlier the claim was establishing peace, not independence. Thank you, please try again.
No assist there. He was murded AFTER he accomplished peace.
Those who died in the "civil war/riots" errupting after independence and before the split into India and Pakistan might not agree with your definition of "accomplishing peace". IIRC Ghandi himself fealt that his efforts had failed in this regard.
The "no military use" phrase is ignorant. The military leads the research into non-lethal weapons, some cause no permanent harm, some no harm at all. In particular the US Marine Corp does a bit or research here, sticky foam and such.
Humorous aside: During a demonstration a reporter asked isn't the Marine with the sticky foam unit in danger from an opponent with lethal weapons? The Marine general giving the demo responed that a Marine with non-lethal weapons will be accompanied by Marines with highly lethal weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone know if this information will be required to be disclosed to vehicle renters?
:-)
The presence of the recorder will be disclosed in the fine print you don't read. Duh.
The "telemetry" of your drive will be disclosed to the rental car company (the car's owner - seems fair) in preparation for computing you bill.
5 years of collecting any kind of data we want, without telling anyone!
If the data is a loop of recent events and data is not leaving your car how are they watching you?
This changes nothing. Try to get car insurance without agreeing to give your insurance company access on demand.
What if other projects adopt "no military" clauses like we've seen lately?
Then the government responds by mandating that all open source projects receiving government funding (not necessarily military related), or to be used in government projects, use a completely open license (as in no strings) like BSD, MIT, etc. This would dry up a lot of the money subsidizing GPL based projects.
Although I do not like this, I have a hard time saying it is wrong. I also recall (in the 90s, maybe they still do it) a NASA publication with pages of "ads" listing software projects that were freely available to anyone (individual or business) since they were NASA funded to some degree. I can't help but think this was how the government should work.
Xenix was launched on 16 bit CPUs in 1983. 32 bit support was added by 1987, so the 16 bit version was hardly ancient history by the time people were talking about 32 bits.
People really didn't start talking 32-bit until OS/2 2.0, what was that 94? 93 at the earliest? 1987 was ancient history. The masses didn't really start until Win95.
Under $100 for a 1G DDR2 stick at a local computerfair last week.
But that's hobbyists dinking with their own system. Dell upgrades a system from 1G to 2G for $130, 1G to 4G for $400. 1G seems standard on the higher end model, 512K on the lower end. Yeah, it will be a while before a generic box going out the door will have a 64-bit OS.
"The move from 16- to 32-bit was dramatic."
//'s came after the Mac. Or are you referring to 32-bit addressing? Macs have always had 32-bit registers but the high order 8-bits of the address registers were ignored. The latter led to some bad practices, storing data in this byte, that broke some programs when Apple began implementing 32-bit addressing.
Only for DOS/Windows users. For Mac users it was largely a non-event, bar some software incompatibilities. Ditto most flavors of Unix.
Mac users were always 32-bit. If you meant Apple users, well they went from 8-bit to 32-bit. The 16-bit Apple
Not ditto for Unix. The 16/32-bit transition had merely occured much earlier. It was "ancient" history by the time most people began talking about 32-bit.
US Asian immigrants today may be better educated, but in the past there were vast numbers of poor Asian and European immigrants and they all worked there asses off to get ahead and get their children educated so that children would not have to work as they did. The impoverished seeing an opportunity *is* a common thread, the difference is merely one of time and location.
I think you overstate the cultural. Growing up impoverished and then being offered an escape route through hard work, and striving to better educate your children so that they have an advantage is a pretty *universal* story. This story is part of my European heritage and it seems pretty common.
The salary-men/samurai analogy is bogus. The samuai were an elite, of high ranking social status. The salary-men are more comparable to the merchant class of classical Japan and low (but not bottom) on the social scale, and the salary-men know this.
It is not "Asian parents". These "Asian parents" are not really acting differntly than the European immigrant great/grand parents of my family and many others. It is not that these "Asian parents" have higher standards per se, it is that normal society has much lower standards these days.
Your qualifications about the immorality of the situation do indeed prevent the above quote from being a totally asinine statement, but you're hanging on by your fingernails. You agree that what is occuring is morally wrong.
:-) Morality is not universal. Each society determines what is moral. For example it may very well be that a worker in China would consider 60 hours a moral option. Stress "option". I also assume that the working environment would be safe, clean, and otherwise healthy. Perhaps these assumptions are universal morals, however a 40 week is not necessarily one.
You seem to have strong fingernails as well.
Since grandfathers are a popular example in this discussion today I'll toss out the perspective of one of mine. He had a decent blue collar job that he could raise his family on given a simple lifestyle. That's about all 40 hours a week offered. However he accepted every opportunity for overtime he could get so that he could send his two kids to college and get a few household luxury items. 60 hours a week was not immoral to him, he was thankful for the opportunity to "get ahead".
I recall seeing a documentary, "A Decent Factory: Made In China", that followed a team sent by Nokia to their suppliers in order to conduct an ethical evaluation. To measure compliance with local laws and contractual obligations governing worker treatment. You are being a little harsh on the capitalists, especially the foreign ones. They may be doing more to protect workers than local industrialists and government.
Given the government's communist nature I would have expected that workers would be treated more fairly (yeah, naive, I guess it was more that communists would be disinclined to favor industrialists). However, communist or not, China seems to be at the early stage of industrialization where the local industrialists are in bed with government and can get away with nearly anything(*). I recall a lawyer who represents "peasants" who were injured in factories. Injured as in their hand was crushed by machinery. The Chinese industrialists investigate and determine that the worker violated safety rules and is therefore owed nothing. The government, in the form of local police, beat up for "peasant's" lawyer when the worker wants to take the industrialists to court.
(*) I'm not suggesting that in the west industrialists are not in bed with governments, both left and right leaning, just that there are laws on the books that do get enforced. A artifact of unionization and other social movements, a later stage of industrialism that China has yet to reach.
His belief is predicated upon the notion that the move to 64 bit computing means people are about to make choices about the next generation of operating systems.
Then this writing fails. 64-bit OSs as overrated and overhyped. The move from 16- to 32-bit was dramatic. A lot of people, including those around here, seem to naively believe the move from 32- to 64-bit will be a similar event. It will not. 64-bit will be meaningful for some servers and some other high end applications, for the rest there will be no appreciable immediate benefit. *IF* Joe User gets all excited about 64-bit in the near term it will probably be due to a successful Micorosoft marketing campaign designed to artificially create an upgrade cycle. Barring this there will be a slow migration to 64-bit as Apple and Microsoft make the 64-bit versions of their OSs the default version, not an optional upgrade. In other words Joe User will get 64-bit when he happens to buy some distant new machine (4-5 years ?). The near term upgrades and build-to-order options will be a minority. I'll do it, I'm a programmer, I want my code to be 32/64-bit clean.
"To prove there is no God we must prove a negative"
;-)"
However, there is no evidence that any god exists. It is anti-intellectual to presume a god exists with a complete and total lack of evidence. Of all the useful intellectual tools developed over history, the most useful has been Occam's Razor.
I also wrote: "When one says science and religion are incomaptible, one is exercising a leap of faith just like the most fundamentalist literal interpreter of the bible. I think neither extreme has it right. Of course I have no proof.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not trolling, I think your anti-intellectual statement is leaning towards the other end of the extremist spectrum and that your opinion is a leap of faith. In truth many great intellectuals in history have been religous, as have many great scientists. As for the most useful intellectual tool, Occam's Razor is pretty damn good, but an open mind is even more important.
"No, I'm not taking the topic change bait. The point in my first post was that pacifists need non-pacifists to protect them. That point stands, that pacifists and non-pacifists have achieved great things is a different topic."
You said that "Ghandi and King prove my point that pacifists need non-pacifists to protect them, they were both murdered." Non sequitor. Ghandi and King could have been protected by a bullet-proof vest, a non-violent body guard taking the bullet, an arrest of the perpetrator before the crime was committed -- any number of non-violent events could have prevented thier murders. Violent action against the murderers wasn't guaranteed to save their lives, either. They weren't *destined* to be murdered. You have made a basic error in logic.
You are mistaken, no purely pacifist action can prevent a determined murder. Only force can do so. Some of your examples would merely alter the method of attack. Some are non-sensical, the body guard takes the bullet? In this case a pacifist still dies, you merely change which one. Prior arrest? Arrest involves force and violence, to be implemented by non-pacifists, exactly my point. Nice try with the "not guaranteed" straw man, no one claimed protection is 100%.
Science and religion are not incompatible. Long ago I attended a California state university, the dean of the chemistry department was a Roman Catholic priest. A local parish priest as a matter of fact. There are extremists on both sides, the notion that hard science and religion are incompatible is just propoganda. Many of the most famous scientists in history were also religious.
;-)
a tican_observe_000716.html
To prove there is no God we must prove a negative, which math and science itself says cannot be done. Where science and religion collide is in the acceptance of theories, evolution for example. Evolution is a theory, a widely accepted and highly plausible one, but still a theory. Even if evolution is historically accurate science cannot prove God was not a guiding factor in its direction, i.e. evolution being God's mechanism of creation. A "day" in genesis not being the 24-hour period we know and love. God was after all communicating with primitive sheep herders when Genesis was written, he would probably use different words when communicating with a modern biologist. When one says science and religion are incomaptible, one is exercising a leap of faith just like the most fundamentalist literal interpreter of the bible. I think neither extreme has it right. Of course I have no proof.
From the Vatican Observatory:
"Analyzing the space rocks, or training the Vatican Observatory's $3 million Arizona telescope on a distant galaxy, are both ways of gaining 'a closer appreciation of the personality of the creator', he said in an interview."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v
Often there is an intent to make military weapons which seriously injure rather than kill. (Especially if the injuries are life threating but treatable.) Wounding a solider is likely to remove three soldiers from the battle.
Serious injury is not the goal of non-lethal weapons, not even mild injury, not permanent injury. What you describe is a less than 100% potential kill rate for lethal weapons, and whether 100% is a goal for lethal weapons. Zero percent is the goal for non-lethal weapons.
You're looking at this backwards. (I think it's because you know this destroys your argument.) The fact that they were both murdered is irrelevant to the discussion. They accomplished great things *specifically because* of their non-violent resistance.
No, I'm not taking the topic change bait. The point in my first post was that pacifists need non-pacifists to protect them. That point stands, that pacifists and non-pacifists have achieved great things is a different topic.
Didn't Ghandi's non-violent resistance overthrow British rule of India? Didn't Martin Luther King's adoption of the same tactics get blacks their civil rights in Ameriac?
Ghandi and King prove my point that pacifists need non-pacifists to protect them, they were both murdered. Whether or not these men accomplished anything before their untimely demises is a differnt topic. Although a related topic may be what other great things could they have accomplished if they had more non-pacifists to protect them.
"So it fails 100% of the time, your point?"
Well, someone had better tell Gandi that he failed. Because it looks to me an awful lot like pacifism managed to win a country its freedom. Which, of course, couldn't have happened, or your 100% comment is false (along with your underlying implication).
You are changing the topic. Notice the subject line, the point was that pacifism only works to protect an individual when there are non-pacifists around to protect the pacifists. Ghandi's murder actually demonstates this point, thank you for the assist.
Ghandi's first mission was to free India from the rule of England. He suceeded in that regard. You can't be 100% sucessful all of the time. But his success does demonstrate that a pacifist movement is not a useless gesture. Thank you for playing.
Nice try but earlier the claim was establishing peace, not independence. Thank you, please try again.
Since you can't spell the word "so" I think you are not allowed to participate in the debate any further.
So your strategy is: if you can't win on reasoning you can win on typos. Enjoy your victory.
No assist there. He was murded AFTER he accomplished peace.
Those who died in the "civil war/riots" errupting after independence and before the split into India and Pakistan might not agree with your definition of "accomplishing peace". IIRC Ghandi himself fealt that his efforts had failed in this regard.
The "no military use" phrase is ignorant. The military leads the research into non-lethal weapons, some cause no permanent harm, some no harm at all. In particular the US Marine Corp does a bit or research here, sticky foam and such.
Humorous aside: During a demonstration a reporter asked isn't the Marine with the sticky foam unit in danger from an opponent with lethal weapons? The Marine general giving the demo responed that a Marine with non-lethal weapons will be accompanied by Marines with highly lethal weapons.
"Pacifism only works when there are non-pacifists to protect the pacifists."
Pacifism only fails when there are non-pacifists to attack the pacifists.
Sow it fails 100% of the time, your point?