It's hard to argue against "improvement, new ideas, new architectures, hardware, etc" but I'll toss one thing in: we are talking about the kernel here, and not the whole system.
That's why I would disagree with the Windows 95 comparison (not the only reason;) ). Looking at the GNU/Linux system, yeah- there's room for improvement, new ideas, etc., but in a different way than for the kernel.
Linus himself has said in interviews that he sees the kernel overall as becoming more stable, and that the next big revolutionary type stuff wouldn't be in the kernel, but in the other stuff (like apps).
Still, I'd agree that (on the whole) some difference between the dev and stable kernels makes sense. I'd just wonder though--when would changes under this scheme get big enough to warrant a big number shift (ie-> 2.7)?
First off, the Daily Show is a good idea-- it's probably one of the better news sources in the U.S. (right up there with the Onion). I'll remember that one...
I have a hard time with the idea of superior and inferior cultures, because it is hard to break that idea down. I am certainly not on the side of saying that "everything is okay, it's just their culture" to argue for atrocities or exploitative measures. Cultural relativity can be taken way too far. But there is a question in this: what culture gets to decide what is superior and what is inferior? While anthropologists can argue about this (and may) the economists and folks at IMF/World Bank have their own ideas, and economic forrce behind their deicisions. This is where my problems with these groups start.
In their eyes, public goods (like public ownership of water, or transportation, or electricity) are bad. For a country to get a loan from the World Bank or participate in the WTO, they have to get rid of these public services. And I don't thinkt that's always a good thing. In fact, I think it usually is a bad thing, and often benefits those who are influencing the WTO/World Bank/etc.
I'll give a specific example. I went down to Bolivia about 2 years ago. That was around the time that the water supplies became privatized (due to all of this). Overnight, the water prices went up by a factor of 4 (for some people). For people who are among the poorest in the world, this is not acceptable. The policies that were enacted ignore a fact that any capitalist should understand well: the goal of a corporation is to make as much money as possible. So they aren't very effective in areas that don't result in profits (but that we think are a good idea anyway).
There are a lot of other examples you can look at (prescription drugs, energy, etc.), but my main belief is that we, the people, should have some way to set boundaries on corporations. Through law. There are a lot of restrictions on this in WTO. As a result, I am against it.
The "angry mobs of protesters" are often shown in the media, but what usually isn't shown is anyone who has a real critique on globalization (or rather, corporate globalization). I haven't seen Vandana Shiva (a Ph.D. physicist in India who is something like the RMS/Linus/etc. of the "globalization from below" movement) on NBC lately. So it is worth asking where you get your information.
Also, looking at the "weakening of local culture with regards to global culture" argument is pretty weak. It isn't "global culture" that is spreading, it's Western culture. It's McDonald's. There is a fair question here: is this supposed to be better than local cultures? There are some questions that pop into my head with stuff like this: most times that folks with a lot of physical power (guns, for example) run into folks with little physical power, they give the great *gift* of culture to the weak group. Europe gave the "global culture" of Christianity to the indigenous people of South America, for example (please note sarcasm).
And hey, any time the media wants to get someone who will represent the globalization from below argument well, let me know. I have a great list of names to give them.
Slashdot Mirror
Fermilab.
Check out "The God Particle" by Leon Lederman, which mentions the fact that it was on budget.
I'd say that it has exceeded expectations, especially considering the fact that folks expected to have a supercollider built later on.
One example, and possibly not what you were considering, but it was a pretty bold statement.
It's hard to argue against "improvement, new ideas, new architectures, hardware, etc" but I'll toss one thing in: we are talking about the kernel here, and not the whole system.
;) ). Looking at the GNU/Linux system, yeah- there's room for improvement, new ideas, etc., but in a different way than for the kernel.
That's why I would disagree with the Windows 95 comparison (not the only reason
Linus himself has said in interviews that he sees the kernel overall as becoming more stable, and that the next big revolutionary type stuff wouldn't be in the kernel, but in the other stuff (like apps).
Still, I'd agree that (on the whole) some difference between the dev and stable kernels makes sense. I'd just wonder though--when would changes under this scheme get big enough to warrant a big number shift (ie-> 2.7)?
Anyone got a guess on where the kernel number will converge? I'm looking forward to linux version 3.14159...
First off, the Daily Show is a good idea-- it's probably one of the better news sources in the U.S. (right up there with the Onion). I'll remember that one...
I have a hard time with the idea of superior and inferior cultures, because it is hard to break that idea down. I am certainly not on the side of saying that "everything is okay, it's just their culture" to argue for atrocities or exploitative measures. Cultural relativity can be taken way too far. But there is a question in this: what culture gets to decide what is superior and what is inferior? While anthropologists can argue about this (and may) the economists and folks at IMF/World Bank have their own ideas, and economic forrce behind their deicisions. This is where my problems with these groups start.
In their eyes, public goods (like public ownership of water, or transportation, or electricity) are bad. For a country to get a loan from the World Bank or participate in the WTO, they have to get rid of these public services. And I don't thinkt that's always a good thing. In fact, I think it usually is a bad thing, and often benefits those who are influencing the WTO/World Bank/etc.
I'll give a specific example. I went down to Bolivia about 2 years ago. That was around the time that the water supplies became privatized (due to all of this). Overnight, the water prices went up by a factor of 4 (for some people). For people who are among the poorest in the world, this is not acceptable. The policies that were enacted ignore a fact that any capitalist should understand well: the goal of a corporation is to make as much money as possible. So they aren't very effective in areas that don't result in profits (but that we think are a good idea anyway).
There are a lot of other examples you can look at (prescription drugs, energy, etc.), but my main belief is that we, the people, should have some way to set boundaries on corporations. Through law. There are a lot of restrictions on this in WTO. As a result, I am against it.
A couple of comments:
The "angry mobs of protesters" are often shown in the media, but what usually isn't shown is anyone who has a real critique on globalization (or rather, corporate globalization). I haven't seen Vandana Shiva (a Ph.D. physicist in India who is something like the RMS/Linus/etc. of the "globalization from below" movement) on NBC lately. So it is worth asking where you get your information.
Also, looking at the "weakening of local culture with regards to global culture" argument is pretty weak. It isn't "global culture" that is spreading, it's Western culture. It's McDonald's. There is a fair question here: is this supposed to be better than local cultures? There are some questions that pop into my head with stuff like this: most times that folks with a lot of physical power (guns, for example) run into folks with little physical power, they give the great *gift* of culture to the weak group. Europe gave the "global culture" of Christianity to the indigenous people of South America, for example (please note sarcasm).
And hey, any time the media wants to get someone who will represent the globalization from below argument well, let me know. I have a great list of names to give them.