"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too..."... That Jobs had it to such a degree is surprising because he has so often been promoted as being a long-time Buddhist.
I think the phrase "promoted as being a Buddhist" may be a clue.;-)
Though perhaps Steve simply saw Buddhism as the primitive work of that artless hack Siddhartha Gautama, a few trivial concepts that only Steve's vision could fully bring to life and only his (multi)touch could elegantly refine to its shiny essence and bring to the world.
"And one more thing..."*shouts and applause of barely restrained anticipation and desire*
"We asked ourselves, what is it we wanted most? And we've added to Steveism the big thing we felt Buddhism was so obviously lacking. We think you'll love it as much as we do. We call it...'Attachment.'"*wild cheering*
Steve probably felt not suing Buddhism was a noble gesture.
To me Slashdot surely deserves a place in the pantheon of great technology creations. If the early Internet was the Homebrew Computer Club for the whole planet, Slashdot was a project not only fun and exciting and cool - the kind of thing one told one's friends "you have to see this" - it was worthwhile. Slashdot was the kind of creation all nerds hope to be able to give to the world: something that brought joy to its users while enabling the creation of things larger than itself.
Rob Malda, you've made the world, and my world, a better place.
I don't know that I have an immediate alternative this evening (though I might and just can't remember it;-) ), but I think societies reflect in a self-similar way the way the rules and agreements that describe them were fashioned.
In other words, were a small group of people, no matter how gifted and altruistic, to create a framework for others to follow without participation and consent of those others during the framing itself, then eventually the society will come to reflect that inequity of that process. The society will just become a larger, longer-term analog of the seed that created it.
This is what we see in the U.S. today.
There are moments of exquisite beauty in the founding documents of the U.S. But because the system itself was developed - of necessity, mind you - in a procedurally inequitable way, the resulting state also reflects that inequity.
It's a function of consciousness, really. Consciousness is self-similar (like fractals and holograms), so the pieces reflect the whole. If the first piece is inequitable (even if that's simply the inequity of participation in its creation), then the whole will be as well.
So whatever follows after Law (which is simply the collective-scale version of how a parent needs to be when a child is roughly two, the structure necessary to hold the developing consciousness until it can hold itself. It was absolutely essential thousands of years ago, but humanity as a whole has developed beyond that stage now) will of necessity be something we create together.
And in order to create something together, we first need to realize and accept that's what we're doing. And to do even that we'll need to be brave enough to leave some of the past behind. Then we can agree to work together to create something - anything.
I'd even go so far as to suggest that anything we create together, no matter how immature in comparison to what we have now, will still in the long run be better for us all.
The "law" has always been just another way for those who write the law to control those who are required to follow it.
"Law" is simply disembodied violence, physical force transferred to the domain of the mind.
The notion of "fair and equitable analysis" is simply the system's own inflated self-image, like "all men are created equal" in 1776, or "freedom" in 2010.
I agree with your statements, btw. I just want to make sure that in moving to something new we don't repeat the mistakes of our past.
There's free as in speech, free as in beer, and free as in range. Americans are "free" in the final sense.
This isn't so much a move against Wikileaks as a sharing site like TPB, but instead a move against anyone who might expose the collusion between **AA and their government lackeys.
That Wikileaks might reveal things like ACTA ahead of time, allowing users to mobilize support against them, makes Wikileaks very "dangerous" to the **AA's goal of complete control.
Not that you care what's really happening - as your reply makes it clear your mind is already made up. Unless the 'independent' analysis agrees with your existing bias, you'll just claim it to be a product of the... complex.
You have, however, no evidence at all to support that assertion. But from your statement we clearly know the following things about you:
You don't care what's really happening.
Your mind is already made up.
Unless an analysis agrees with your existing bias, you'll just dismiss it as the bias of those with whom you disagree.
Thanks for illustrating the importance of understanding projection, sparky. Nice work.
The BP+US statements about this debacle have from the very beginning been utterly fanciful and misleading. Why should anyone suddenly believe this one?
BP+US has treated the entire disaster as simply a public relations problem. Control the media message, attack and suppress any contrary evidence, and thus define reality. At least until the guilty have escaped any consequences and the gullible are left to pay the real costs.
And my observation here is to note the similarity to U.S. petro-military operations in Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East). Both were caused by hubris and greed, and the official "solution" to what is clearly a complete and total clusterfuck is just PR "rebranding" - to simply leave and declare victory.
Without independent observation and analysis, in either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Mexico, who has any idea of what's really happening?
But from the similarities I'll bet this disaster will continue exactly like Iraqistan: lots of smiling photo ops of the CEO's of state, the occasional human interest story about the hardships suffered by the little people (carefully avoiding any link to those responsible), and the suffering and environmental devastation and the death will keep going on and on.
Gulf of Mexico, Persian Gulf.
Same hydrocarbons, different day.
"My fellow Americans, major combat operations in the Gulf have ended. In the battle of Macondo, the United States and our oillies have prevailed."
So it doesn't appear the US gov't demonized anyone. They didn't write the Slashdot post (AFAIK) and didn't write the AP story.
The story has to come from somewhere. It's not like AP or any of the other outlets covering it were doing investigative journalism. They're stenographers for whatever the government happens to say, and so what makes it into the headlines is a reflection of what they were told. That the Court stenographers - almost all of them, it seems - end up with a particular impression about Venezuela is part of (and part of the reason for) the government's original spin on the story. And that spin is not an accident.
While there is usually a paragraph much farther down about how Venezuela wasn't actually involved in any way, thus giving the government plausible deniability about flat-out lying about Venezuela, understanding and controlling how a story will be relayed by the media is the primary job of those who announce it. In fact, since there was no meaningful risk to the U.S. from these people, the value to the state of a story like this is almost entirely how it is covered.
And as predicted, as of a few hours ago the top story on Google News was from UK's The Guardian: "US couple accused of trying to sell nuclear secrets to Venezuela."
Propaganda Accomplished.
It's best to understand the MSM as simply the marketing department of a larger business/government/media entity.
Yeah, I found that little bit of propaganda to be exceptionally vile when I first read of this a few hours ago.
But for the U.S. it's demonize two birds with one stone: The Feds get to play up the fear of nuclear terrorists, and plant the next-after-Iran seed in the public's mind as well.
Even though Venezuela wasn't involved at all, just watch how many "news" outlets echo the "Venezuela's stealing U.S. secrets and building nukes" part of the headline.
So it's win-win for the U.S. government. Who among them cares whether it's true?
"US Couple Arrested For Transmitting Child Pornography To President Obama."
the US...is still holding out hope of establishing...rules that go beyond the WIPO Internet treaties and were even rejected by US courts.
That would be precisely why the forces of intellectual darkness and their minions within the U.S. government are pushing for this with such rabidity, and in such secrecy. Unless it's flat-out unconstitutional (a much, much narrower standard than simply "illegal"), anything in this treaty will supersede U.S. courts and U.S. law.
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little...ah, fuck it. We do the unconstitutional immediately, too."
My friend, you completely misunderestimate the buying public's capacity to accept pretty much anything so long as it costs more than the previous generation, and is shinier.
Thus the nature of American politics.
Just like fast food and beer, politicians and political postures are simply cheap consumables designed to gain market share and make a profit for the seller.
Slashdot Mirror
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." - Decca Records rejecting the Beatles
"I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." - Michael Dell on the future of Apple
"I think there is a world market for about five computers." - Thomas J. Watson, chairman of IBM
"We don't think that's what people want. A movie takes forever to download." - Steve Jobs on the possibility of an iTunes Movie Store
"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too..." ... That Jobs had it to such a degree is surprising because he has so often been promoted as being a long-time Buddhist.
I think the phrase "promoted as being a Buddhist" may be a clue. ;-)
Though perhaps Steve simply saw Buddhism as the primitive work of that artless hack Siddhartha Gautama, a few trivial concepts that only Steve's vision could fully bring to life and only his (multi)touch could elegantly refine to its shiny essence and bring to the world.
"And one more thing..." *shouts and applause of barely restrained anticipation and desire*
"We asked ourselves, what is it we wanted most? And we've added to Steveism the big thing we felt Buddhism was so obviously lacking. We think you'll love it as much as we do. We call it...'Attachment.'" *wild cheering*
Steve probably felt not suing Buddhism was a noble gesture.
To me Slashdot surely deserves a place in the pantheon of great technology creations. If the early Internet was the Homebrew Computer Club for the whole planet, Slashdot was a project not only fun and exciting and cool - the kind of thing one told one's friends "you have to see this" - it was worthwhile. Slashdot was the kind of creation all nerds hope to be able to give to the world: something that brought joy to its users while enabling the creation of things larger than itself.
Rob Malda, you've made the world, and my world, a better place.
Thank you and farewell, good CmdrTaco.
We are well past hope of peaceful change, but still far too comfortable for the masses to act.
Indeed - western tyranny's sweet spot.
Maybe they're only buying it inside Second Life.
I don't know that I have an immediate alternative this evening (though I might and just can't remember it ;-) ), but I think societies reflect in a self-similar way the way the rules and agreements that describe them were fashioned.
In other words, were a small group of people, no matter how gifted and altruistic, to create a framework for others to follow without participation and consent of those others during the framing itself, then eventually the society will come to reflect that inequity of that process. The society will just become a larger, longer-term analog of the seed that created it.
This is what we see in the U.S. today.
There are moments of exquisite beauty in the founding documents of the U.S. But because the system itself was developed - of necessity, mind you - in a procedurally inequitable way, the resulting state also reflects that inequity.
It's a function of consciousness, really. Consciousness is self-similar (like fractals and holograms), so the pieces reflect the whole. If the first piece is inequitable (even if that's simply the inequity of participation in its creation), then the whole will be as well.
So whatever follows after Law (which is simply the collective-scale version of how a parent needs to be when a child is roughly two, the structure necessary to hold the developing consciousness until it can hold itself. It was absolutely essential thousands of years ago, but humanity as a whole has developed beyond that stage now) will of necessity be something we create together.
And in order to create something together, we first need to realize and accept that's what we're doing. And to do even that we'll need to be brave enough to leave some of the past behind. Then we can agree to work together to create something - anything.
I'd even go so far as to suggest that anything we create together, no matter how immature in comparison to what we have now, will still in the long run be better for us all.
The "law" has always been just another way for those who write the law to control those who are required to follow it.
"Law" is simply disembodied violence, physical force transferred to the domain of the mind.
The notion of "fair and equitable analysis" is simply the system's own inflated self-image, like "all men are created equal" in 1776, or "freedom" in 2010.
I agree with your statements, btw. I just want to make sure that in moving to something new we don't repeat the mistakes of our past.
There's free as in speech, free as in beer, and free as in range. Americans are "free" in the final sense.
Hold on...Utah? They're saying Larry King's Mormon?
Maybe it's just that the world's horniest dinosaur prefers to prey on Mormon girls. That must be it.
Big deal. So they've discovered Larry King.
"Salt Lake City, hello..."
This isn't so much a move against Wikileaks as a sharing site like TPB, but instead a move against anyone who might expose the collusion between **AA and their government lackeys.
That Wikileaks might reveal things like ACTA ahead of time, allowing users to mobilize support against them, makes Wikileaks very "dangerous" to the **AA's goal of complete control.
So you're saying there's an unexpected upside.
"And now here's a site Google thinks you'll really like."
Not that you care what's really happening - as your reply makes it clear your mind is already made up. Unless the 'independent' analysis agrees with your existing bias, you'll just claim it to be a product of the ... complex.
You have, however, no evidence at all to support that assertion. But from your statement we clearly know the following things about you:
Thanks for illustrating the importance of understanding projection, sparky. Nice work.
The BP+US statements about this debacle have from the very beginning been utterly fanciful and misleading. Why should anyone suddenly believe this one?
BP+US has treated the entire disaster as simply a public relations problem. Control the media message, attack and suppress any contrary evidence, and thus define reality. At least until the guilty have escaped any consequences and the gullible are left to pay the real costs.
And my observation here is to note the similarity to U.S. petro-military operations in Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East). Both were caused by hubris and greed, and the official "solution" to what is clearly a complete and total clusterfuck is just PR "rebranding" - to simply leave and declare victory.
Without independent observation and analysis, in either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Mexico, who has any idea of what's really happening?
But from the similarities I'll bet this disaster will continue exactly like Iraqistan: lots of smiling photo ops of the CEO's of state, the occasional human interest story about the hardships suffered by the little people (carefully avoiding any link to those responsible), and the suffering and environmental devastation and the death will keep going on and on.
Gulf of Mexico, Persian Gulf.
Same hydrocarbons, different day.
"My fellow Americans, major combat operations in the Gulf have ended. In the battle of Macondo, the United States and our oillies have prevailed."
"Emission Accomplished"
I do have it turned on, but at least for me the notifications only go out a long time after the mods actually happen.
In this case, even though I've received emails about all the replies, I still haven't seen one saying the original post has been modded at all.
It looks like there was a bit of a skirmish. :-)
So it doesn't appear the US gov't demonized anyone. They didn't write the Slashdot post (AFAIK) and didn't write the AP story.
The story has to come from somewhere. It's not like AP or any of the other outlets covering it were doing investigative journalism. They're stenographers for whatever the government happens to say, and so what makes it into the headlines is a reflection of what they were told. That the Court stenographers - almost all of them, it seems - end up with a particular impression about Venezuela is part of (and part of the reason for) the government's original spin on the story. And that spin is not an accident.
While there is usually a paragraph much farther down about how Venezuela wasn't actually involved in any way, thus giving the government plausible deniability about flat-out lying about Venezuela, understanding and controlling how a story will be relayed by the media is the primary job of those who announce it. In fact, since there was no meaningful risk to the U.S. from these people, the value to the state of a story like this is almost entirely how it is covered.
And as predicted, as of a few hours ago the top story on Google News was from UK's The Guardian: "US couple accused of trying to sell nuclear secrets to Venezuela."
Propaganda Accomplished.
It's best to understand the MSM as simply the marketing department of a larger business/government/media entity.
Yeah, I found that little bit of propaganda to be exceptionally vile when I first read of this a few hours ago.
But for the U.S. it's demonize two birds with one stone: The Feds get to play up the fear of nuclear terrorists, and plant the next-after-Iran seed in the public's mind as well.
Even though Venezuela wasn't involved at all, just watch how many "news" outlets echo the "Venezuela's stealing U.S. secrets and building nukes" part of the headline.
So it's win-win for the U.S. government. Who among them cares whether it's true?
"US Couple Arrested For Transmitting Child Pornography To President Obama."
"It's like taking a desktop and putting it in your pocket," said Schorn.
That's gotta be one of the most uncomfortable marketing images ever.
"Is that an ARM in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?"
is when you read their words, and they just say "kill me"
"Brad, take a look at this...there's an 86% chance Mr. Pike's first word here is 'blow,' and a 14% chance it's 'kill'. Now what?"
*long pause*
*frantic beeping*
It's the Three Stooges of executive sexual harassment.
"Imagine those three on a business trip to, I don't know, Thailand."
"Hey Mark! I'm tryin' to think but nothin' happens! Nyuk nyuk nyuk."
the US ...is still holding out hope of establishing...rules that go beyond the WIPO Internet treaties and were even rejected by US courts.
That would be precisely why the forces of intellectual darkness and their minions within the U.S. government are pushing for this with such rabidity, and in such secrecy. Unless it's flat-out unconstitutional (a much, much narrower standard than simply "illegal"), anything in this treaty will supersede U.S. courts and U.S. law.
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little...ah, fuck it. We do the unconstitutional immediately, too."
My friend, you completely misunderestimate the buying public's capacity to accept pretty much anything so long as it costs more than the previous generation, and is shinier.
Thus the nature of American politics.
Just like fast food and beer, politicians and political postures are simply cheap consumables designed to gain market share and make a profit for the seller.
"New and improved! Now with 50% more Hope."
as if a million college students were screaming "Arrgh!"
According to the expert witness from the RIAA, that's because all college students are pirates.
"Moved to a legal system"? I think it's better said "finally recognized the fundamental character of our (and all) government."
We are the people the Constitution was written both to protect, and to protect against.
Wish I had mod points today...though I'd have a tough time choosing between "Funny" and "Insightful." :-)
Ha. Even after a nuclear apocalypse leaves the future of the species at stake Slashdotters still won't be able to get laid.
"Hey there, beautiful! I run my smoldering pile of radioactive rubble entirely on Linux. Wanna see?"