Note he said "the majority of people would die, and the remaining would be overtaken and killed".
My point was in regards to "the remaining", not to "the majority". I'm not saying that everything would be A-OK, just that homo sapiens sapiens can survive de-industrialization.
If we stopped all industry right now the majority of people on Earth would die, and the remaining would be overtaken and killed by "nature".
If by "industry" you mean "banging the rocks together", then yes. Otherwise, no. The vast majority of human history has been without heavy industry of any kind, and even without agriculture to speak of. Basically, Og and Fthlog managed to somehow survive the Ice Ages without all that sort of stuff, and there's no reason to think that modern-day humans wouldn't be able to.
A smart move if you wish to succeed--the resources [in the Americas] were there for the taking.
Umm, no they weren't. The resources were controlled by a bunch of societies with millions of people. The attempts at colonization 1607 and 1620 were successful, but the resources in the Americas weren't just lying around free for the taking.
Consider also that at least 2 previous colonization attempts (Vinland and Roanoke) were wiped out, and the Massachusetts colony only barely survived its first winter in Plymouth.
Socially relevent
on
Coders At Work
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
FTFS: "In her interview, Fran Allen makes an interesting assertion â" programming and computer science need to become more socially relevant."
How do you recognize the extroverted programmer? He's the one staring at *your* shoes.
Same goes for engineers. Name a well-known (outside of engineering) engineer. I'll wait...
Since programming involves long hours alone staring at a computer screen, it's no surprise it tends to attract people who don't mind or even enjoy being alone, and for whom self-promotion is fairly low on the to-do list.
You actually think that laws to protect you from the government actually apply to you?
Well, speaking as a relatively wealthy white guy with a few political connections and at least a basic understanding legal procedures, I'd say yes. If I were, say, poor, black, or less connected, I'd probably be very very screwed if I were accused of something.
Solution: Make the beancounters eat the dogfood, not the engineers. Sure, you'll lose a few, but that's just solving another problem. Any BOFH would know that.
Yeah but if it works, it'll generate income, there is a risk/reward here, unlike the Keynes "bury money in a mine" scenario.
It's worth noting that Keynes proposed paying people to do useless work only as an alternative to having people be unemployed. He was very clear that employing people to do useful work was preferable to employing people to do useless work. Hence the CCC and TVA building projects that are in many cases still in use today.
As in, when I give my keys to the valet, I have to trust that he actually works for the hotel and isn't just going to go for a joyride when I step in the door.
Or that he does work for the hotel but still won't just go for a joyride.
If you are smart enough, organized enough and motivated enough to clone RFIs, you probably won't steal cars though. Instead you might use your skill to, say, gain physical access to somebody's point-of-sale system and steal a few thousand credit card numbers.
Under those sorts of conditions, I'm fairly certain NASA could (with the support of the president) say "The judge has made its decision, now let them enforce it!" and used the gravity tractor anyways.
How do you tell the difference? Both places are known to have brightly colored motivational posters, people acting like 3-year-olds, and people who can't count.
No, my point was that because a company is primarily legally liable to its shareholders it is more or less required by law to engage in screwing all other parties involved in their business.
I'd be fine with a solution that basically says shareholders can't sue unless fraud has occurred.
Try picking the next 20 people you see on the street and asking them who Alan Turing was. Then ask those same people who George Patton was. Then realize that Turing had about as much to do with winning WWII as Patton did.
Any large corp. that doesn't is screwing its shareholders.
Yup, that's absolutely right kids. A company screwing their shareholders is in fact grounds for a lawsuit. Screwing employees, screwing customers, screwing the government, screwing the entire US economy, and screwing the environment is all just good business.
Since when is a printed word able to measure up to the threat of armed attack?
Are you suggesting that all opposition to any political leader must come in the form of violence? Because Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson among many others would beg to differ with you.
A slippery slope argument without any description of the intervening steps is shaky at best.
In this particular instance, I think it's worth pointing out that the "As usual, citing security our government is trying to take away our privacy." cited in TFS are obviously bogus: a computer that is off or is disconnected from a network is a computer that can't violate your privacy until someone physically gets to it. In other words, it's harder to violate your privacy with a computer that is affected by this bill than it is with a computer that's not affected by this bill. There are free speech concerns, but definitely not privacy concerns, and it's important to know the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot user 1049312 tells Slashdot user 926 to hand in his geek card. I never thought I'd see the day.
Although really, the correct syntax is "Geek card you lose. Hand it over you must."
Note he said "the majority of people would die, and the remaining would be overtaken and killed".
My point was in regards to "the remaining", not to "the majority". I'm not saying that everything would be A-OK, just that homo sapiens sapiens can survive de-industrialization.
If we stopped all industry right now the majority of people on Earth would die, and the remaining would be overtaken and killed by "nature".
If by "industry" you mean "banging the rocks together", then yes. Otherwise, no. The vast majority of human history has been without heavy industry of any kind, and even without agriculture to speak of. Basically, Og and Fthlog managed to somehow survive the Ice Ages without all that sort of stuff, and there's no reason to think that modern-day humans wouldn't be able to.
A smart move if you wish to succeed--the resources [in the Americas] were there for the taking.
Umm, no they weren't. The resources were controlled by a bunch of societies with millions of people. The attempts at colonization 1607 and 1620 were successful, but the resources in the Americas weren't just lying around free for the taking.
Consider also that at least 2 previous colonization attempts (Vinland and Roanoke) were wiped out, and the Massachusetts colony only barely survived its first winter in Plymouth.
FTFS: "In her interview, Fran Allen makes an interesting assertion â" programming and computer science need to become more socially relevant."
How do you recognize the extroverted programmer? He's the one staring at *your* shoes.
Same goes for engineers. Name a well-known (outside of engineering) engineer. I'll wait ...
Since programming involves long hours alone staring at a computer screen, it's no surprise it tends to attract people who don't mind or even enjoy being alone, and for whom self-promotion is fairly low on the to-do list.
It costs less money to pay off politicians or lobbyists than to upgrade the system.
Yeah, our politicians really ought to be charging a lot more for favorable laws. They should be in the Mercedes price range, not the Yugo price range.
Since when is behaving like a raging asshole a crime?
Office politics can get you fired. They can't get you locked up.
You actually think that laws to protect you from the government actually apply to you?
Well, speaking as a relatively wealthy white guy with a few political connections and at least a basic understanding legal procedures, I'd say yes. If I were, say, poor, black, or less connected, I'd probably be very very screwed if I were accused of something.
Solution: Make the beancounters eat the dogfood, not the engineers. Sure, you'll lose a few, but that's just solving another problem. Any BOFH would know that.
Yeah but if it works, it'll generate income, there is a risk/reward here, unlike the Keynes "bury money in a mine" scenario.
It's worth noting that Keynes proposed paying people to do useless work only as an alternative to having people be unemployed. He was very clear that employing people to do useful work was preferable to employing people to do useless work. Hence the CCC and TVA building projects that are in many cases still in use today.
As in, when I give my keys to the valet, I have to trust that he actually works for the hotel and isn't just going to go for a joyride when I step in the door.
Or that he does work for the hotel but still won't just go for a joyride.
If you are smart enough, organized enough and motivated enough to clone RFIs, you probably won't steal cars though. Instead you might use your skill to, say, gain physical access to somebody's point-of-sale system and steal a few thousand credit card numbers.
Under those sorts of conditions, I'm fairly certain NASA could (with the support of the president) say "The judge has made its decision, now let them enforce it!" and used the gravity tractor anyways.
The real question is what the Space Pope thinks, though. Besides not dating robots, of course.
Almost makes you want to join an anarcho-syndicalist commune, where you take turns acting as a sort of executive officer for the week.
Was this an office or a preschool?
How do you tell the difference? Both places are known to have brightly colored motivational posters, people acting like 3-year-olds, and people who can't count.
No, my point was that because a company is primarily legally liable to its shareholders it is more or less required by law to engage in screwing all other parties involved in their business.
I'd be fine with a solution that basically says shareholders can't sue unless fraud has occurred.
BUT EVERYONE LIKES B1FF'S POSTS!
(filter food)
Patrick Stewart definitely can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61AAwNDwU4U
I know you were making a joke, but I should point out that English is an official language of Liberia, spoken by about 20% of the population.
Try picking the next 20 people you see on the street and asking them who Alan Turing was. Then ask those same people who George Patton was. Then realize that Turing had about as much to do with winning WWII as Patton did.
Any large corp. that doesn't is screwing its shareholders.
Yup, that's absolutely right kids. A company screwing their shareholders is in fact grounds for a lawsuit. Screwing employees, screwing customers, screwing the government, screwing the entire US economy, and screwing the environment is all just good business.
A keyboard. How quaint. -cracks knuckles-
Since when is a printed word able to measure up to the threat of armed attack?
Are you suggesting that all opposition to any political leader must come in the form of violence? Because Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson among many others would beg to differ with you.
...this could be the beginning of a new slippery slope.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
A slippery slope argument without any description of the intervening steps is shaky at best.
In this particular instance, I think it's worth pointing out that the "As usual, citing security our government is trying to take away our privacy." cited in TFS are obviously bogus: a computer that is off or is disconnected from a network is a computer that can't violate your privacy until someone physically gets to it. In other words, it's harder to violate your privacy with a computer that is affected by this bill than it is with a computer that's not affected by this bill. There are free speech concerns, but definitely not privacy concerns, and it's important to know the difference.