I disagree. The intent of the people in allowing the fictitious legal entity known as "corporation" to exist is to only lessen personal financial liability. It is never the intent to allow to lessen personal moral and ethical responsibility.
It would be insane if, for example, you chose not to steal in the evening, but as part of the corporation you stole from 9 to 5 on the corporation's behalf, as long as you made money to the shareholders. It is also insane that a person who condemns censorship and values free speech joins a corporation and is then engaged in aiding and abetting the very same things they dislike while destroying the things they enjoy. But unfortunately that's exactly what happens. Once a person joins a group, they often believe they are no longer individually responsible.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
In fact, in a recently linked article on Slashdot, Richard Stallman has called all Linux developers to think for themselves and to make their own moral and ethical choices. And there were people on Slashdot condemning Stallman for "trying to split the Linux comunity for his own ego". That's insane! So, the wholeness of the comunity is of more value than the sanity of the individual decision? Since when does this kind of group-think dominate?
Groups and communities are important. But the health of the community can only be assured if the individual members take full individual responsibility when acting within the community. Group-think has the superficial feel of the community, but it destroyes any community from the inside.
Compare (quoted from http://ag.arizona.edu/futures/home/glossary.html): --- Group-intelligence. This is where each member of the group contributes to the whole. The result is a synergistic effect where the group is more than just a sum of the parts. Groups or teams that operate this way function well. See group-think for the opposite effect of a group. ---
vs.
--- Group-think. This is the effect when a group works together and is sufficiently similar either by group membership or by training that they "think as one". This frequently results in narrow perspectives, avoidance of debating key assumptions or trends, and detracts from what can be positive benefits of a group. See group- intelligence (opposite) and mindset (similar). ---
Personally, I would be very leery of any corporation that attempts to set a precedent by influencing any government in any way. That's the peoples job.
Actually, corporations have no will and no intent. It's the people who comprise the corp that act. And since it is the people's job to act humanely, even if the people join together to form a corp, they are not thereby relieved of their morality.
This is a very lopsided piece of journalism. As has been stated in past posts on compliance with national governments by internet companies, these corporations are required to follow the laws of the countries in which they operate.
Saying that you commit injustice because you were required under law is not a valid defense in the same way that during the Nuremberg trials "I only followed orders" was not recognized as a valid defense. Human beings are always making moral choices, even when following laws and orders, and should thereby not follow anything blindly.
People form corporations to avoid financial liability. This is an already somewhat dubious concept, but when the liability they are trying to avoid is a moral or an ethical liability, then the people who form the corp cross the line from dubious to ignoble. But it's always the people who are responsible for their actions and never the fictitious legal entities.
Sure, now try to move your files back to PC from iPod. How about trying it with and without iTunes? Good luck!
(hint: it should at the very LEAST work with iTunes, but ideally the songs stored on iPod should be easily manageable via the user-friendly USB drive directory structure)
Ever tried to get your tunes OFF the iPod and back onto your PC? I mean, even the mp3's you recorded yourself, of your own voice? Why can't you control your own data?
I wouldn't worry too much. I think you did a great job.:) Next time you can include both links. It's a bit of a toss up: do you credit the place you found the news at? or do you links the primary source? It seems fair to link to the place you found it at, but on the other hand, people often do this to promote their own news aggregators (and not everyone on Slashdot is happy about it). Still, people should be able to promote their sites. Apparently some ways are tacky and some are not (and this might change with time).
The way I would decide this particular case is by noticing that the article you link does not ITSELF have a proper link to the source blog (unless I missed it, in which case, I apologize). This would cause me to decide to cut them out of the loop by linking to the source blog, as a kind of "punishment". On the other hand, if they themselves link nicely to the source, and it's really where you found it, then why not? I don't see any problems there.
So this is just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Have fun!
And then there's the sting. Ampulex does not want to kill cockroaches. It doesn't even want to paralyze them the way spiders and snakes do, since it is too small to drag a big paralyzed roach into its burrow. So instead it just delicately retools the roach's neural network to take away its motivation. Its venom does more than make roaches zombies. It also alters their metabolism, so that their intake of oxygen drops by a third.
This reminds me of a social dynamic between human employees and employers:
1. Employer doesn't want to kill the employee: check. 2. Employer doesn't want to paralize the employee: check. 3. Employer delicately takes away employee's self-motivation: check.
I bet the stuff about oxygen and metabolism is true as well.
Agreed. My theory is that people don't just go and willy nilly post stuff on their blogs like that. My guess is that the person felt like no one cared and no one wanted to listen, and consequently wanted to blow off some steam.
Maybe just some internal listening and acknowledging would have kept this kind of opinion from hitting the web.
I think, generally, while people are selfish and greedy, they are not malicious. So when something happens that appears malicious, it's most likely because something else has triggered it.
I understand what the NDA "should" do, but it's a really dumb person who actually relies on "should"s. A wise person would rather rely on a thorough understanding of human condition and reality (how things ARE, as opposed to how we would like them to be, or how they "should" be).
When stuff like that happens, it's very easy to point finger and lay blame, but it's hard to see the truth: there is no one single cause that can be blamed. Any number of things might have prevented this kind of situation from arising: more discipline on the part of the blogger, more openness on the part of employers, etc. As I see it, the employer is just as responsible for what happened as anyone. They probably allowed a bad vibe to roam in the low ranks, due to upper management detaching themselves too much from the reality of the low ranks where all the real stuff actually happens. In my experience, upper management often has their head in the clouds (to put it mildly) and is way out of touch with what's going on. For example, IIRC, in Microsoft senior execs lied to Gates about the real situation with certain products and Gates only found out thru a wistle-blower email from the lower ranks. This happens all the time.
People at the top are prone to delusions of grandure and often over-value themselves while people at the bottom often undervalue themselves. This results in people at the bottom shaking in their boots as the people at the top yell at them and apply strong psychological force (using tyrany instead of true leadership, relying mostly on fear rather than respect and inspiration). People at the bottom will then say "all is fine boss", when it's really not. The Boss being delusional, quickly believes it, because that's what he wanted to hear anyway. Then the low ranking employees gather in various areas and stew and stew... And then one of them blows up on the blog.
The NDA is a really shitty way to deal with this phenomenon.
When you look at your companies products, you have to realise: It is not your job to praise them or to damn them (in public), that is what you have marketing people for. They can take anything, and talk it up to be the best invention since sliced bread. Your competitor's marketing people can do the same thing.
That's like saying that it's not the job of the parents to damn or praise their own kids, because the neighbors can do the same thing.
It's much better to not only allow, but rather, to encourage internal criticism. If the person feels like the internal managers and upper managers are humble and open-minded, and constantly and kindly solicit criticism, then the person will feel quite happy and fulfilled to spill their guts in private to an internal person that matters -- to a person that has the decision power to turn the product for the better.
The reason people spill their guts in public, is for one of two reasons:
1. Internally no one wants to listen to them.
2. The management says they are open, but don't act open and do not solicit criticism humbly and vigorously enough. In other words, not only must they be open in reality, but they must also convey that impression to others convincingly, sincerely.
Amen.... I wish game companies spent 90% of their time on gameplay. The gameplay in recent RPGs is far, far worse than gameplay in a free game like OAngband. I always wonder, what kind of moron invents such crappy game mechanics, when here you have available a free game that has such super game mechanics, that can keep a person addicted for years.
I used to be an OAngband addict (and Zangband and Nethack before that), and the only thing that got me to stop playing was RSI. Sheesh! If my hands didn't give out, I'd probably be playing 6 hours of OAngband every day even now. That game just does NOT get old.:)
So, if anyone can make a game that is even 50% as good in gameplay as, say, OAngband, then I guarantee they will sell, even without graphics and sound.
I said, maybe now they will stop. But maybe they won't. I'm not saying they should stop. In fact, I think they should continue to complain as long as they have desire, because I believe eventually such complaining will lead to a deeper understanding (it might take an aeon or two).
I think you're reading a little more into it than there really is.
I'm not arguing. I am saying that Wikimedia is at least comparable to non-fiction books as far as fact checking goes (and is probably better). I'm not making any statements regarding various "shoulds".
In other words, non-fiction books are a worse source of information than Wikipedia, which is constantly open to peer review (unlike dead tree media, which is unalterable once printed).
So, maybe now people constantly slamming Wikipedia for its lack of "fact checking" will stop?
It's only a matter of time before fact checking becomes a pay-for extra even in science journals.
I'll speculate a little. Neurons and the brain are not where the mind is. They are more like an antenna into the actual mind. Thus having a huge antenna or a tiny one doesn't mean you have a big or a tiny mind. A huge antenna can be hooked up to a tiny mind and a small antenna can be hooked up to a big mind.
I didn't RTFA nor did I WTFV, but based on the discussion and the main title of this Slashdot entry, it doesn't sound like it's a documentary. Documentary involves taping actual D&D sessions, making an effort to stay as unbiased as possible, taping them in diverse places and times.
Is there no one from whom you can learn? Do you have no criteria by which to judge some research better than others? Can you not evaluate methodology, preeminance, the critical faculties of other humans?
I am incapable of not learning. I learn whether I intend to learn or not. I learn as much from a drooling idiot as I do from a Ph.D. I learn from a street bum and I learn from my boss at work. I learn from my wife and from my dog. I learn from myself day time and dream time.
Yes I have some criteria, but I couldn't put them into words. What I will tell you is this though: I do not judge the quality of information based on how much the person drinks or how many women they screw with, and so on, unless screwing women or drinking is precisely the focus of my interest.
In my experience, human critical faculties are not worthy of respect. I don't care who it is. Ph.D. or not. IQ 3000 or not. All, without exceptions, make statements that are only true within this or that narrow context and are unworkable in many other contexts. Pretty much every being I came across is incapable of admitting their own limitation in this regard. When challenged, they become defensive and start bickering. I have NEVER seen anyone say, "you're right.. I really don't know what I am talking about, even though I feel like I know it." Never seen it yet. I've seen people come close to this though... But the more credentials the person has, the less humility they tend to have with regard to their own critical faculties.
So, do I admit the same in myself? Yes! In fact, that's exactly why I can't trust anyone with regard to their statements -- simply because I lack the faculties to verify them as either true or false.
Does this mean I can't trust in general? Quite the opposite! Because I understand human nature, I trust pretty much all beings, but more to say it more correctly, I trust all situations. I trust them because I don't expect much from them and don't have a whole lot to lose. If I have no much to lose and not much to protect, then what can I possibly gain by stressing myself out with needless mistrust? Then when a person says A and does B, I am OK and I can continue to trust them, because I have never depended on words equalling reality anyway -- that's not the basis of my kind of trust.
When people start making a lot of "it's like this" and "it's like that" type of statements, that's when I have a good laugh (and maybe a yawn too). And I would like to expect the same curtesy from others: when I say "it's like this" I don't want people to burst their veins because they took me way more seriously then I have ever intended or wanted...
* Is the speaker likely to have knowledge of the matter they are discussing?
* Is the speaker someone whom we generally trust to be of sound mind?
* Does the speaker have a vested interest in our believing one thing or another?
As I see it, there is no point in this kind of evaluation of the speaker's personality. Good information should stand in its own two feet, and it should be easily verifiable. If it's not easily verifiable, then we should take it as a matter of taste.
If the information is of the kind that would cause you to significantly alter your opinion based on who was saying it, then you should reject such information in the first place, even, and especially, if it is said by a character that is pleasant to you.
An increase in text does not result in a corresponding increase in information. Text may contain lies, but worse, it might be truthful in a way that subtly misdirects the mind of the reader away from the truly important and serious issues. In general, more text, and even more truthful text, does not mean more information, because information is contextual.
For example, you're a Chinese person, and you search for "massacres in China". That's the context of your search. Getting a lot of text, especially if it's otherwise truthful, will misdirect the searching in a powerful way by making them believe that there are indeed no massacres known to have happened in China in recent history.
That's a real problem. Information is something very, very tricky. It's very hard to understand accurately what information actually is. The obvious idea, "the more bits -- the more information," is wrong. Bits can serve as the vehicle of misinformation and delusion, even if in some narrow context they are truthful. What matters is how those bits operate within the context of each individual searcher's mind. Serving up more bits doesn't mean "doing more good".
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. The intent of the people in allowing the fictitious legal entity known as "corporation" to exist is to only lessen personal financial liability. It is never the intent to allow to lessen personal moral and ethical responsibility.
:
It would be insane if, for example, you chose not to steal in the evening, but as part of the corporation you stole from 9 to 5 on the corporation's behalf, as long as you made money to the shareholders. It is also insane that a person who condemns censorship and values free speech joins a corporation and is then engaged in aiding and abetting the very same things they dislike while destroying the things they enjoy. But unfortunately that's exactly what happens. Once a person joins a group, they often believe they are no longer individually responsible.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
In fact, in a recently linked article on Slashdot, Richard Stallman has called all Linux developers to think for themselves and to make their own moral and ethical choices. And there were people on Slashdot condemning Stallman for "trying to split the Linux comunity for his own ego". That's insane! So, the wholeness of the comunity is of more value than the sanity of the individual decision? Since when does this kind of group-think dominate?
Groups and communities are important. But the health of the community can only be assured if the individual members take full individual responsibility when acting within the community. Group-think has the superficial feel of the community, but it destroyes any community from the inside.
Compare (quoted from http://ag.arizona.edu/futures/home/glossary.html)
---
Group-intelligence. This is where each member of the group contributes to the whole. The result is a synergistic effect where the group is more than just a sum of the parts. Groups or teams that operate this way function well. See group-think for the opposite effect of a group.
---
vs.
---
Group-think. This is the effect when a group works together and is sufficiently similar either by group membership or by training that they "think as one". This frequently results in narrow perspectives, avoidance of debating key assumptions or trends, and detracts from what can be positive benefits of a group. See group- intelligence (opposite) and mindset (similar).
---
Personally, I would be very leery of any corporation that attempts to set a precedent by influencing any government in any way. That's the peoples job.
Actually, corporations have no will and no intent. It's the people who comprise the corp that act. And since it is the people's job to act humanely, even if the people join together to form a corp, they are not thereby relieved of their morality.
This is a very lopsided piece of journalism. As has been stated in past posts on compliance with national governments by internet companies, these corporations are required to follow the laws of the countries in which they operate.
Saying that you commit injustice because you were required under law is not a valid defense in the same way that during the Nuremberg trials "I only followed orders" was not recognized as a valid defense. Human beings are always making moral choices, even when following laws and orders, and should thereby not follow anything blindly.
People form corporations to avoid financial liability. This is an already somewhat dubious concept, but when the liability they are trying to avoid is a moral or an ethical liability, then the people who form the corp cross the line from dubious to ignoble. But it's always the people who are responsible for their actions and never the fictitious legal entities.
Why would I start looking for a v0.1 FOSS replacement for it?
Because you want to install it on many computers and then use it to move files to and FROM your iPod in a user-friendly way?
Try to move the files from iPod back to PC.
Sure, now try to move your files back to PC from iPod. How about trying it with and without iTunes? Good luck!
(hint: it should at the very LEAST work with iTunes, but ideally the songs stored on iPod should be easily manageable via the user-friendly USB drive directory structure)
Ever tried to get your tunes OFF the iPod and back onto your PC? I mean, even the mp3's you recorded yourself, of your own voice? Why can't you control your own data?
I wouldn't worry too much. I think you did a great job. :) Next time you can include both links. It's a bit of a toss up: do you credit the place you found the news at? or do you links the primary source? It seems fair to link to the place you found it at, but on the other hand, people often do this to promote their own news aggregators (and not everyone on Slashdot is happy about it). Still, people should be able to promote their sites. Apparently some ways are tacky and some are not (and this might change with time).
The way I would decide this particular case is by noticing that the article you link does not ITSELF have a proper link to the source blog (unless I missed it, in which case, I apologize). This would cause me to decide to cut them out of the loop by linking to the source blog, as a kind of "punishment". On the other hand, if they themselves link nicely to the source, and it's really where you found it, then why not? I don't see any problems there.
So this is just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Have fun!
That's funny. The blog is the actual source of news in this case, and the news site linked is just a portal.
And then there's the sting. Ampulex does not want to kill cockroaches. It doesn't even want to paralyze them the way spiders and snakes do, since it is too small to drag a big paralyzed roach into its burrow. So instead it just delicately retools the roach's neural network to take away its motivation. Its venom does more than make roaches zombies. It also alters their metabolism, so that their intake of oxygen drops by a third.
This reminds me of a social dynamic between human employees and employers:
1. Employer doesn't want to kill the employee: check.
2. Employer doesn't want to paralize the employee: check.
3. Employer delicately takes away employee's self-motivation: check.
I bet the stuff about oxygen and metabolism is true as well.
Agreed. My theory is that people don't just go and willy nilly post stuff on their blogs like that. My guess is that the person felt like no one cared and no one wanted to listen, and consequently wanted to blow off some steam.
Maybe just some internal listening and acknowledging would have kept this kind of opinion from hitting the web.
I think, generally, while people are selfish and greedy, they are not malicious. So when something happens that appears malicious, it's most likely because something else has triggered it.
I understand what the NDA "should" do, but it's a really dumb person who actually relies on "should"s. A wise person would rather rely on a thorough understanding of human condition and reality (how things ARE, as opposed to how we would like them to be, or how they "should" be).
When stuff like that happens, it's very easy to point finger and lay blame, but it's hard to see the truth: there is no one single cause that can be blamed. Any number of things might have prevented this kind of situation from arising: more discipline on the part of the blogger, more openness on the part of employers, etc. As I see it, the employer is just as responsible for what happened as anyone. They probably allowed a bad vibe to roam in the low ranks, due to upper management detaching themselves too much from the reality of the low ranks where all the real stuff actually happens. In my experience, upper management often has their head in the clouds (to put it mildly) and is way out of touch with what's going on. For example, IIRC, in Microsoft senior execs lied to Gates about the real situation with certain products and Gates only found out thru a wistle-blower email from the lower ranks. This happens all the time.
People at the top are prone to delusions of grandure and often over-value themselves while people at the bottom often undervalue themselves. This results in people at the bottom shaking in their boots as the people at the top yell at them and apply strong psychological force (using tyrany instead of true leadership, relying mostly on fear rather than respect and inspiration). People at the bottom will then say "all is fine boss", when it's really not. The Boss being delusional, quickly believes it, because that's what he wanted to hear anyway. Then the low ranking employees gather in various areas and stew and stew... And then one of them blows up on the blog.
The NDA is a really shitty way to deal with this phenomenon.
When you look at your companies products, you have to realise: It is not your job to praise them or to damn them (in public), that is what you have marketing people for. They can take anything, and talk it up to be the best invention since sliced bread. Your competitor's marketing people can do the same thing.
That's like saying that it's not the job of the parents to damn or praise their own kids, because the neighbors can do the same thing.
It's much better to not only allow, but rather, to encourage internal criticism. If the person feels like the internal managers and upper managers are humble and open-minded, and constantly and kindly solicit criticism, then the person will feel quite happy and fulfilled to spill their guts in private to an internal person that matters -- to a person that has the decision power to turn the product for the better.
The reason people spill their guts in public, is for one of two reasons:
1. Internally no one wants to listen to them.
2. The management says they are open, but don't act open and do not solicit criticism humbly and vigorously enough. In other words, not only must they be open in reality, but they must also convey that impression to others convincingly, sincerely.
R.I.P.
What??? I was wearing a Ring of Protection against RNG +5! BS.
He's trashing the game he's working on. What boss would put up with that?
The kind of boss that is open to negative opinions -- a rare, but very powerful beast.
Small note: I've cured my RSI since then, but still don't want to return to roguelike games.
Amen.... I wish game companies spent 90% of their time on gameplay. The gameplay in recent RPGs is far, far worse than gameplay in a free game like OAngband. I always wonder, what kind of moron invents such crappy game mechanics, when here you have available a free game that has such super game mechanics, that can keep a person addicted for years.
:)
I used to be an OAngband addict (and Zangband and Nethack before that), and the only thing that got me to stop playing was RSI. Sheesh! If my hands didn't give out, I'd probably be playing 6 hours of OAngband every day even now. That game just does NOT get old.
So, if anyone can make a game that is even 50% as good in gameplay as, say, OAngband, then I guarantee they will sell, even without graphics and sound.
This also means it should be 100% legal to crawl Google itself, and it maybe is. But Google sure doesn't say so.
I said, maybe now they will stop. But maybe they won't. I'm not saying they should stop. In fact, I think they should continue to complain as long as they have desire, because I believe eventually such complaining will lead to a deeper understanding (it might take an aeon or two).
I think you're reading a little more into it than there really is.
I'm not arguing. I am saying that Wikimedia is at least comparable to non-fiction books as far as fact checking goes (and is probably better). I'm not making any statements regarding various "shoulds".
In other words, non-fiction books are a worse source of information than Wikipedia, which is constantly open to peer review (unlike dead tree media, which is unalterable once printed).
So, maybe now people constantly slamming Wikipedia for its lack of "fact checking" will stop?
It's only a matter of time before fact checking becomes a pay-for extra even in science journals.
I'll speculate a little. Neurons and the brain are not where the mind is. They are more like an antenna into the actual mind. Thus having a huge antenna or a tiny one doesn't mean you have a big or a tiny mind. A huge antenna can be hooked up to a tiny mind and a small antenna can be hooked up to a big mind.
Just don't ask me what I actually believe.
I didn't RTFA nor did I WTFV, but based on the discussion and the main title of this Slashdot entry, it doesn't sound like it's a documentary. Documentary involves taping actual D&D sessions, making an effort to stay as unbiased as possible, taping them in diverse places and times.
It sounds more like a parody.
Is there no one from whom you can learn? Do you have no criteria by which to judge some research better than others? Can you not evaluate methodology, preeminance, the critical faculties of other humans?
I am incapable of not learning. I learn whether I intend to learn or not. I learn as much from a drooling idiot as I do from a Ph.D. I learn from a street bum and I learn from my boss at work. I learn from my wife and from my dog. I learn from myself day time and dream time.
Yes I have some criteria, but I couldn't put them into words. What I will tell you is this though: I do not judge the quality of information based on how much the person drinks or how many women they screw with, and so on, unless screwing women or drinking is precisely the focus of my interest.
In my experience, human critical faculties are not worthy of respect. I don't care who it is. Ph.D. or not. IQ 3000 or not. All, without exceptions, make statements that are only true within this or that narrow context and are unworkable in many other contexts. Pretty much every being I came across is incapable of admitting their own limitation in this regard. When challenged, they become defensive and start bickering. I have NEVER seen anyone say, "you're right.. I really don't know what I am talking about, even though I feel like I know it." Never seen it yet. I've seen people come close to this though... But the more credentials the person has, the less humility they tend to have with regard to their own critical faculties.
So, do I admit the same in myself? Yes! In fact, that's exactly why I can't trust anyone with regard to their statements -- simply because I lack the faculties to verify them as either true or false.
Does this mean I can't trust in general? Quite the opposite! Because I understand human nature, I trust pretty much all beings, but more to say it more correctly, I trust all situations. I trust them because I don't expect much from them and don't have a whole lot to lose. If I have no much to lose and not much to protect, then what can I possibly gain by stressing myself out with needless mistrust? Then when a person says A and does B, I am OK and I can continue to trust them, because I have never depended on words equalling reality anyway -- that's not the basis of my kind of trust.
When people start making a lot of "it's like this" and "it's like that" type of statements, that's when I have a good laugh (and maybe a yawn too). And I would like to expect the same curtesy from others: when I say "it's like this" I don't want people to burst their veins because they took me way more seriously then I have ever intended or wanted...
As I see it, there is no point in this kind of evaluation of the speaker's personality. Good information should stand in its own two feet, and it should be easily verifiable. If it's not easily verifiable, then we should take it as a matter of taste.
If the information is of the kind that would cause you to significantly alter your opinion based on who was saying it, then you should reject such information in the first place, even, and especially, if it is said by a character that is pleasant to you.
An increase in text does not result in a corresponding increase in information. Text may contain lies, but worse, it might be truthful in a way that subtly misdirects the mind of the reader away from the truly important and serious issues. In general, more text, and even more truthful text, does not mean more information, because information is contextual.
For example, you're a Chinese person, and you search for "massacres in China". That's the context of your search. Getting a lot of text, especially if it's otherwise truthful, will misdirect the searching in a powerful way by making them believe that there are indeed no massacres known to have happened in China in recent history.
That's a real problem. Information is something very, very tricky. It's very hard to understand accurately what information actually is. The obvious idea, "the more bits -- the more information," is wrong. Bits can serve as the vehicle of misinformation and delusion, even if in some narrow context they are truthful. What matters is how those bits operate within the context of each individual searcher's mind. Serving up more bits doesn't mean "doing more good".
How about on Golden Gate Bridge in San Fran? :)