Not having to know how things work is an inarguable benefit of technology. But that benefit comes (or can come) with some unintended bad consequences, as well, especially for education and the development of intelligence.
You say that "there will always be scientists and mathematicians to learn this stuff." I hope you're right, but I suspect that the lack of development of the skills necessary for those pursuits in the aggregate population can't be good for society's overall production of such experts.
Furthermore, some cognitive scientists suggest that learning mathematical skills opens the door to many other cognitive accomplishments, even ones that are different in kind. Learning how to work out math problems for oneself, even though we don't "have" to for any immediate practical purpose, can have greater benefits than the small amount of labor saved. The idea that we could free ourselves of needless labor is attractive, of course. If we think that the only need at issue in learning mathematics is figuring out what the answer is, then obviously any technical or technological means that allows us to achieve that goal more efficiently is a boon. But if mathematical education serves to teach skills that are harder to define and measure ("rigor," "precision," or whatever they should be called) but still very much needed, then these "labor-saving" devices are no help.
After all, what would we be saving ourselves from, but intelligence?
There's also the simple fact that in most sports games there's someone to root for, ie the home team.
Well, you could base it on clans.
Come to think of it, that could be immensely cool. Imagine your clan getting corporate sponsorship: great boxes, free beer and pizza,... spas, massage therapy....
Exactly. I believe the $250K figure was derived by adjusting 30 pieces of silver for inflation.
Heh. Last time I turned someone in for a reward of 30 silver pieces, I got thrown out of the Thieves' Guild and my Lockpicking ability went down 15 points. Some reward!
When you build a bridge, it's inspected frequently to make sure nothing has been overlooked, no cracks have surfaced, and nobody has attached a bomb.
I think that was the point of the example: there are standards that regulate the conditions under which bridges must be constructed and maintained. There are no such standards for software; maybe there ought to be.
Getting industry to agree to meaningful standards or regulations, of course, would be damn near impossible.
Hardline GPL zealots will of course continue to bray that "they released the product so they MUST release ALL of their sources".
I challenge you to find a real GPL zealot who says this. This is actually what is said by people attacking the GPL. Hardline GPL zealots know the limits of copyright law: the worst possible thing that can happen is a lawsuit by the original author, it is impossible to force somebody to lose their own copyright.
"No true Scotsman would..." etc. I agree that someone who understands the intent of the GPL would not demand the forcible annexation of someone else's code. But what this thread has abundantly shown is that lots of people who think of themselves as "real GPL zealots" are demanding just that. Granted, they're not very important (unless they're releasing gobs of useful GPL'd code that innocent developers want to reuse, which seems unlikely). But they are still capable of providing the opposition with an effortless public relations victory by means of their misunderstanding.
I wonder if there isn't a larger cultural problem here. It seems that people still don't get the gratis/liberum distinction. We've got to try to change that.
Somewhere in Iraq, five years from now, on al-Jazeeradot, some arrogant and bellicose individual is going to persistently and pointlessly include in his sig something like the following factoid:
--
Poll: 75% of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq.
And that guy will be just as much of a loser as you are.
We're the 2-3 billion people who have adopted Western Civilization. We're here, we're better than you, and we're not going away.
Congratulations on having adopted Western Civilization. You showed great discernment in having been born into it. Very shrewd, indeed. I suppose that's why you're entitled to call yourself better than people stupid enough to be born in the Third World.
Of note is that 92 percent of the new information was stored on magnetic media, which may create an interesting problem for historians and archaeologists of the future.
Not least for those historians who want to know what my Amazon.com session ID was on the day that my Runescape character hit mining level 33.
I agree that regulation is practically difficult, but I think the best argument in favor of this kind of thing reasons from the fact that environmental costs _are_ paid by someone, so they already are "in the market," so to speak. This makes such regulations fundamentally different from other kinds of price controls, which merely seek to produce some specific effect (e.g., preventing wild fluctuations in price and production of necessity goods).
Those attempts to "massage" the market are defensible, I think, but a recognition that "total cost" is already part of the market makes for a much stronger argument in favor of regulation of pollution. Markets so far have not really been distributing the costs of pollution and enviromental degradation fairly, which should make good libertarians mad, too.
people will be charging their fuel cell up from renewable energy sources. But surely, in a free market, they'll be charging it up from the cheapest energy source, which will be the same as the variety of (generally non-renewable) sources that drive today's power grids.
Not "surely," at all. If the long-term costs of using fossil fuels were included in their price, it is highly unlikely that they would be the cheapest
Slashdot Mirror
*waves hand*. This is not the URL you were looking for. Move along.
Truly an American icon.
Wouldn't that be Kferrari? Or maybe just Kar.
The "improvements" would include basic features like a Kradio, KsteeringWheel, KbrakePedal, KrearViewMirror, ad nauseam.
Maybe you meant Silence! ?
In Soviet Ru$$ia, a Beowulf cluster of "it is now official, a Netcraft survey confirms: all your BSD are dying" IMAGINES YOU!!!
"Warm ... and mandatory."
"A required romp."
"This is the movie all of America must see."
You say that "there will always be scientists and mathematicians to learn this stuff." I hope you're right, but I suspect that the lack of development of the skills necessary for those pursuits in the aggregate population can't be good for society's overall production of such experts.
Furthermore, some cognitive scientists suggest that learning mathematical skills opens the door to many other cognitive accomplishments, even ones that are different in kind. Learning how to work out math problems for oneself, even though we don't "have" to for any immediate practical purpose, can have greater benefits than the small amount of labor saved. The idea that we could free ourselves of needless labor is attractive, of course. If we think that the only need at issue in learning mathematics is figuring out what the answer is, then obviously any technical or technological means that allows us to achieve that goal more efficiently is a boon. But if mathematical education serves to teach skills that are harder to define and measure ("rigor," "precision," or whatever they should be called) but still very much needed, then these "labor-saving" devices are no help.
After all, what would we be saving ourselves from, but intelligence?
I'd hit it.
Well, you could base it on clans.
Come to think of it, that could be immensely cool. Imagine your clan getting corporate sponsorship: great boxes, free beer and pizza, ... spas, massage therapy ....
So ... he's planning to trap humanity in cells that work together ... like ... like, radio buttons?!
I still don't get it.
Heh. Last time I turned someone in for a reward of 30 silver pieces, I got thrown out of the Thieves' Guild and my Lockpicking ability went down 15 points. Some reward!
I think that was the point of the example: there are standards that regulate the conditions under which bridges must be constructed and maintained. There are no such standards for software; maybe there ought to be.
Getting industry to agree to meaningful standards or regulations, of course, would be damn near impossible.
Accepting your premise, you are now obligated to turn over to me at least part of that sandwich you just made. :)
OK, Kreskin. What's it going to be next month?
Mr. Saturday Night Special
Got a barrel that's blue and cold
Ain't good for nothin'
But put a man six feet in a hole.
I challenge you to find a real GPL zealot who says this. This is actually what is said by people attacking the GPL. Hardline GPL zealots know the limits of copyright law: the worst possible thing that can happen is a lawsuit by the original author, it is impossible to force somebody to lose their own copyright.
"No true Scotsman would ..." etc. I agree that someone who understands the intent of the GPL would not demand the forcible annexation of someone else's code. But what this thread has abundantly shown is that lots of people who think of themselves as "real GPL zealots" are demanding just that. Granted, they're not very important (unless they're releasing gobs of useful GPL'd code that innocent developers want to reuse, which seems unlikely). But they are still capable of providing the opposition with an effortless public relations victory by means of their misunderstanding.
I wonder if there isn't a larger cultural problem here. It seems that people still don't get the gratis/liberum distinction. We've got to try to change that.
Somewhere in Iraq, five years from now, on al-Jazeeradot, some arrogant and bellicose individual is going to persistently and pointlessly include in his sig something like the following factoid:
And that guy will be just as much of a loser as you are.
And that sentence should not have a comma there. :-)
...
And don't tell me I shouldn't start a sentence with "and."
Now, that's a real number.
Congratulations on having adopted Western Civilization. You showed great discernment in having been born into it. Very shrewd, indeed. I suppose that's why you're entitled to call yourself better than people stupid enough to be born in the Third World.
Asshat.
Not least for those historians who want to know what my Amazon.com session ID was on the day that my Runescape character hit mining level 33.
Those attempts to "massage" the market are defensible, I think, but a recognition that "total cost" is already part of the market makes for a much stronger argument in favor of regulation of pollution. Markets so far have not really been distributing the costs of pollution and enviromental degradation fairly, which should make good libertarians mad, too.
Not "surely," at all. If the long-term costs of using fossil fuels were included in their price, it is highly unlikely that they would be the cheapest
yeah, but a guy who used to work there says it's a pain in the neck...
Worse than that. The job really bites.
Because with the book, you arent accidentally going to see the goatse guy.
I am forever scarred.
Me, too. Let's start a 12-step recovery program.