He's good at moving money around. The Black Eye Peas sucked up lots of juice from the local economy when they come into my town... most of which came from corrupt politicians and shady back room deals rather than from people who actually care to hear their music.
I've got something to custom fabricate Lego bricks sitting on my desk. I've been using it to print parts for a geodesic dome to donate to the urban garden society as a greenhouse, but it will make Lego. I got sick and tired of waiting for Makerbot parts to come into stock over a year ago and built one myself by hand. Get off your ass... the only thing holding you back is you.
No, not progress... change. To define something as progress requires that you have a preconceived destination that you are moving towards. To claim that you have achieved progress without indicating what you are progressing towards is as meaningless a statement as saying that something weighs 30 without giving a unit of measurement.
To use the term "progress" in the fashion you have used it is to use it as a weasel word, in which you allow your audience to imagine that your idea of what the goal is is the same as yours, so they will blindly give you their support.
The techniques we use to govern our collective affairs rely on leverage created through wealth destruction to remain viable, and we have focused immense amounts of human effort to find new techniques to achieve that wealth destruction. I do not consider that to be a sign of progress towards any goal I hold dear. I consider it clear evidence that our society is degenerate, and becoming more so.
when law meets technology, law bends, not technology. sure, the law can do a lot of damage, but technological progress is inevitable.
There is no such thing as "technological progress". As a technique becomes more effective in the setting that it is in, it inevitably becomes less effective in every other setting, which means that as the external circumstances change, which they inevitably do, the technique becomes defunct.
"The Legal System" is a perfect example. "The Financial System" is another. They're both collaborative technologies, and nothing more. They'll go by the wayside when the changing world renders them obsolete, but it will not be progress, just change.
It's a reference to the MakerBot. It's a RepStrap, a way to build yourself a RepRap if you don't yet own a one. I've got one on my desk upstairs, waiting for a replacement thermistor for my extruder so I can start churning out parts for this one.
The fact that you can get one in a kit form has spawned a whole host of different printable upgrades for the MakerBot. For example, there's a set of models up on thingiverse you can download and print that will let you mount a Dremel tool in place of the print head for light CNC work. I'm planning to try cutting circuit boards with it.
South Korea is so wealthy because the western corporations are resources money into it, as a way to encroach on Asia. North Korea is so militarized because China is dumping resources into it, as a way to create a buffer zone between the western corporations and their citizens.
Both civilizations are the way they are because the rest of the world demanded that they be that way.
The first (second?) trilogy was intended to present the idea that those who have passion for life and a connection to humanity are evil, while those who have no passion and no attachment to humanity are morally superior.
The second (first?) trilogy was intended to present the idea that violent psychopaths are really just humans who failed to live up to the ideals of detachment, and that we should have some compassion for them.
The reality is, those who have no passion for life or attachment to the rest of humanity are the dangerous psychopaths, and not the shining heros they are presented to be in the series. The movie presents black as white and white as black for reasons that can never be proven to be this way or that, but still have more in common with those who drop propaganda on peoples heads from helicopters than they do with someone who wishes to make a buck telling an entertaining story.
Don't let the propaganda fool you. The Jedi are among us... and they must be stopped.
Not in the slightest. I still think that the US, the UK, Israel and their allies are evil and need to be laid low. Just like when most of europe united around the socialists during WWII, just like when Philip the Fair executed the Knights Templar for usery, driving them underground to re-emerge as the Masons, just like when Jesus knocked over the moneylenders tables and told them they would be wiped out in a single generation for their crimes against humanity.
But, feel free to keep stalking me and quoting me. I am not a politician... I enjoy offending my enemy, that he might reveal himself and save me the trouble of seeking him out.
If there are only a few people who never do anything controversial in public, and the vast majority do things that are controversial in public, why would the vast majority allow the aforementioned minority to rule over them?
That one person who is a complete blank is clearly hiding something. Why would we trust them with anything at all?
It's wrong to put those people to work. It leads to a situation where we can outlaw more and more things as a way to get out of taking responsibility for ourselves, and it leads to a situation where we are reliant on a steady supply of criminals to keep things operating smoothly.
If we could ostracize them, that would be better than execution. But there is no place both within our reach and beyond our borders, so there is no where to ostracize them to. No, public execution is the right way to deal with this type of thing.
The right thing to do would be to expropriate all these companies and make them transparently run non-profit organizations, democratically administered by their workforce, supplying technology to us all for cost + labour.
Companies that engage in this sort of fraud should not be permitted to ever be run for profit again. The necessity of their existence should be something they are required to justify to the citizenry regularly, and when they are no longer able to do so, they should be dissolved.
Those who perpetuated this fraud should be publicly executed. They have misdirected millions if not billions of people for many years, and caused more harm and suffering in their time than any rapist or serial killer.
See, basically, what they do is, they take an individual apple plant whose fertilized babies taste great. Not a species... an individual member of the species.
Then, they clone that individual plants gonads, over and over again, and they splice those cloned gonads onto some other local individual tree, usually a crab apple tree. They cut off the crab apple tree's gonads, and stick the cloned gonads into their place. Then they grow the mutant until it starts having fertile babies, and they gather those up and sell them to you at the store. They are generally cross breeds if you plant an apple seed, they'll usually be half clone and half crab apple, grown nearby for the specific purpose of having pollen to fertilize the flowers of the clone.
Now, given all that, the purpose of your specific question eludes me.
The purpose was to elicit an answer, and possibly provoke some thought. Amazing that you could write so much without including the words "Yes" or "No" in there anywhere with regards to the question.
A lot of what is termed "Hard" SF involves the writer attempting to imagine a single, significant technological advance, then attempt to extrapolate what the culture would look like in the presence of such an advance, what it's ramifications are, without doing anything that violates our current understanding of reality outside that narrow bound.
In a world where game systems with more computer power than the what were the most powerful machines on earth 20 years ago are available at a price within the reach of a childs allowance, it seems like a reasonable exercise to imagine things in this way and write a story around it.
I would consider the novella "Fast Times at Fairmont High" by Vernor Vinge to be a good example of such a story. I don't remember there being any technology in the story that was beyond the reach of modern science and engineering, and the story was better for it, in my opinion. But I would still consider it "Science Fiction".
Imagine if you had a $10,000,000.00 budget for modern, existing technology. Then, imagine that each person on earth had access to similar technology on a casual basis, and write a story in and about the culture that co-exists with this.
Being able to subsequently give it away to all and sundry is a distant second, and the insistence on it being a key part of "open source" tarnishes the whole philosophy, and pretty much brings destroys any ethical and moral high ground it might have, boiling it down to: "we want stuff for free" (as opposed to "we want to be able to fix problems and/or make improvements").
Are you sure it doesn't boil down to "We have no desire to do the violence necessary to prevent people from redistributing your shit, we have no desire to fund the violence necessary to prevent people from redistributing your shit, but if you decide to try and carry out the violence necessary yourself (like that's ever going to happen), we're quite happy to do the violence necessary to lock you in a box for the rest of your life."?
That all sounds quite ethical to me.
Perhaps there's a bit of "Even though we are among those individuals wise enough to avoid your traps, we find it offensive the way you rope people into dependent relationships by getting them reliant on knowledge which you have intentionally rendered arcane, we find it threatening the way you wield those enslaved people, and for the sake of their suffering and for the sake of our safety, we want to break your control and leave you no more relevant than a man who sells wagon wheels for horse drawn carriages." in there... who knows.
That sounds quite like the moral high ground to me...
When someone uses "open source", and knows what he is talking about, he means OSI open source. There is the possibility that that someone does not yet know what open source means, or that he is trying to twist its meaning, but there is a general convention about what we mean when we say "open source".
I'm sorry, but that's just arrogant. So if someone doesn't use your exact adopted meaning, then they either are ignorant or malicious? Your opinion is showing.
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty says, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' says Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' says Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'"
Ahh, but the other question is, if you're a hack who doesn't deserve to be celebrated, how much of the money you never would have had anyway is it worth to have the cartel make you an idol to millions of people against their will?
Looks like a bid to establish a strong military presence in space before the nation comes crashing down, and ensure the capacity to finish the job remains in private hands even if they miss their timetable.
Consider this parallel development, it says a great deal about where their heads are at these days:
I'd suggest trying to collaborate with Michael Reynolds. There's a film about his work, it's called Garbage Warrior. The film certainly gives you an idea the amount of frustration and suffering you can be put through by the establishment.
I'm confident that he would consider what you are trying to do to be consistent with his personal mission, and would have some good advice for you if you were to get his attention.
Back in my university days, I made homebrew in residence to save money. Then I taught the other guys on my floor how to make it, and loaned them my equipment, leading to a peak production of 70 dozen beer per week on our floor. You wanna bet the women liked partying on OUR floor.:)
Personally, I don't think you can call what these guys are making beer.
Soaking it in whiskey barrels, for example... cheating. People buy those barrels and fill them with water, then let the alcohol soak out of them and drink it... they call it swish. Not just adding "flavour" with those barrels.
Using fractional freezing techniques to make it stronger is about as novel as leaving your apple cider out in the snow and separating the frozen stuff out. Personally, I wouldn't call it "beer" either after it's been treated this way.
I can see why it's expensive though. Each time you freeze and filter it, the concentration of alcohol in the frozen material increases, until you're just throwing away alcohol and not concentrating it at all. So, making one of those super strong ice hardened beers involves a large amount of waste, assuming you're not taking the "ice" and firing it into a conventional still to recover the loss.
We're getting ready to do it ourselves here at home, because operating a still is illegal, but freezing your wine isn't. We're using champagne yeast, apple juice, grape juice, blackberry juice, blueberry juice, dextrose and honey.
I almost broke the world record for strongest beer back the 80s... did my junior high school science fair project on brewing, and made an IPA that was 11.5% at a time when the record was 12%. Wish I'd been allowed to drink it:P
I should make a beer using starch as an adsorbent. Call it Beershine or something.
To answer the question, we need to qualify what education is, and what it's goals are. The education system is a place for institutionalizing people. It is a place where you attempt to overwrite an individuals personal qualities and reform them all into something arbitrary, uniform and predetermined.
If you wish to improve the performance of the educational institutions, you look to other places where people are institutionalized. Prisons, churches, psychiatric hospitals, etc.
If you object to this whole idea of institutionalizing people like prisoners and manipulating them like preachers, then you should be objecting to the educational system, period. Institutionalization is a way to disenfranchise people and keep them isolated from the world they live in, and it always has been.
If you want more capable citizens, you need to give them resources to work with and space to make mistakes. If you wait for them to prove themselves before you give them resources, they never will.
We all had our development stunted in this way, myself included. Personally, I'll consider my life a success if my grandchildren know well enough to be ashamed of us and the brutal and primitive way we live our lives.
Inasmuch as they rely on PayPal, the fault lies with Cryptome for allowing PayPal to take over responsibilities that they could not be trusted with. They should have planned things better. Groups whose goal is to increase their capital cannot be trusted. In the end, they will always take more than is justified, scorch the earth behind them and bring your plans to ruin.
Slashdot Mirror
He's good at moving money around. The Black Eye Peas sucked up lots of juice from the local economy when they come into my town... most of which came from corrupt politicians and shady back room deals rather than from people who actually care to hear their music.
I care about their children.
I've got something to custom fabricate Lego bricks sitting on my desk. I've been using it to print parts for a geodesic dome to donate to the urban garden society as a greenhouse, but it will make Lego. I got sick and tired of waiting for Makerbot parts to come into stock over a year ago and built one myself by hand. Get off your ass... the only thing holding you back is you.
No, not progress... change. To define something as progress requires that you have a preconceived destination that you are moving towards. To claim that you have achieved progress without indicating what you are progressing towards is as meaningless a statement as saying that something weighs 30 without giving a unit of measurement.
To use the term "progress" in the fashion you have used it is to use it as a weasel word, in which you allow your audience to imagine that your idea of what the goal is is the same as yours, so they will blindly give you their support.
The techniques we use to govern our collective affairs rely on leverage created through wealth destruction to remain viable, and we have focused immense amounts of human effort to find new techniques to achieve that wealth destruction. I do not consider that to be a sign of progress towards any goal I hold dear. I consider it clear evidence that our society is degenerate, and becoming more so.
when law meets technology, law bends, not technology. sure, the law can do a lot of damage, but technological progress is inevitable.
There is no such thing as "technological progress". As a technique becomes more effective in the setting that it is in, it inevitably becomes less effective in every other setting, which means that as the external circumstances change, which they inevitably do, the technique becomes defunct.
"The Legal System" is a perfect example. "The Financial System" is another. They're both collaborative technologies, and nothing more. They'll go by the wayside when the changing world renders them obsolete, but it will not be progress, just change.
It's a reference to the MakerBot. It's a RepStrap, a way to build yourself a RepRap if you don't yet own a one. I've got one on my desk upstairs, waiting for a replacement thermistor for my extruder so I can start churning out parts for this one.
The fact that you can get one in a kit form has spawned a whole host of different printable upgrades for the MakerBot. For example, there's a set of models up on thingiverse you can download and print that will let you mount a Dremel tool in place of the print head for light CNC work. I'm planning to try cutting circuit boards with it.
South Korea is so wealthy because the western corporations are resources money into it, as a way to encroach on Asia. North Korea is so militarized because China is dumping resources into it, as a way to create a buffer zone between the western corporations and their citizens.
Both civilizations are the way they are because the rest of the world demanded that they be that way.
The first (second?) trilogy was intended to present the idea that those who have passion for life and a connection to humanity are evil, while those who have no passion and no attachment to humanity are morally superior.
The second (first?) trilogy was intended to present the idea that violent psychopaths are really just humans who failed to live up to the ideals of detachment, and that we should have some compassion for them.
The reality is, those who have no passion for life or attachment to the rest of humanity are the dangerous psychopaths, and not the shining heros they are presented to be in the series. The movie presents black as white and white as black for reasons that can never be proven to be this way or that, but still have more in common with those who drop propaganda on peoples heads from helicopters than they do with someone who wishes to make a buck telling an entertaining story.
Don't let the propaganda fool you. The Jedi are among us... and they must be stopped.
Not in the slightest. I still think that the US, the UK, Israel and their allies are evil and need to be laid low. Just like when most of europe united around the socialists during WWII, just like when Philip the Fair executed the Knights Templar for usery, driving them underground to re-emerge as the Masons, just like when Jesus knocked over the moneylenders tables and told them they would be wiped out in a single generation for their crimes against humanity.
But, feel free to keep stalking me and quoting me. I am not a politician... I enjoy offending my enemy, that he might reveal himself and save me the trouble of seeking him out.
If there are only a few people who never do anything controversial in public, and the vast majority do things that are controversial in public, why would the vast majority allow the aforementioned minority to rule over them?
That one person who is a complete blank is clearly hiding something. Why would we trust them with anything at all?
It's wrong to put those people to work. It leads to a situation where we can outlaw more and more things as a way to get out of taking responsibility for ourselves, and it leads to a situation where we are reliant on a steady supply of criminals to keep things operating smoothly.
If we could ostracize them, that would be better than execution. But there is no place both within our reach and beyond our borders, so there is no where to ostracize them to. No, public execution is the right way to deal with this type of thing.
The right thing to do would be to expropriate all these companies and make them transparently run non-profit organizations, democratically administered by their workforce, supplying technology to us all for cost + labour.
Companies that engage in this sort of fraud should not be permitted to ever be run for profit again. The necessity of their existence should be something they are required to justify to the citizenry regularly, and when they are no longer able to do so, they should be dissolved.
Those who perpetuated this fraud should be publicly executed. They have misdirected millions if not billions of people for many years, and caused more harm and suffering in their time than any rapist or serial killer.
But, they do let you bite the apple first.
See, basically, what they do is, they take an individual apple plant whose fertilized babies taste great. Not a species... an individual member of the species.
Then, they clone that individual plants gonads, over and over again, and they splice those cloned gonads onto some other local individual tree, usually a crab apple tree. They cut off the crab apple tree's gonads, and stick the cloned gonads into their place. Then they grow the mutant until it starts having fertile babies, and they gather those up and sell them to you at the store. They are generally cross breeds if you plant an apple seed, they'll usually be half clone and half crab apple, grown nearby for the specific purpose of having pollen to fertilize the flowers of the clone.
You really are eating the same apple, every time.
Write a story bound by x and y, does it fit this label, yes or no. Can't get too much more precise than that.
Now, given all that, the purpose of your specific question eludes me.
The purpose was to elicit an answer, and possibly provoke some thought. Amazing that you could write so much without including the words "Yes" or "No" in there anywhere with regards to the question.
A lot of what is termed "Hard" SF involves the writer attempting to imagine a single, significant technological advance, then attempt to extrapolate what the culture would look like in the presence of such an advance, what it's ramifications are, without doing anything that violates our current understanding of reality outside that narrow bound.
In a world where game systems with more computer power than the what were the most powerful machines on earth 20 years ago are available at a price within the reach of a childs allowance, it seems like a reasonable exercise to imagine things in this way and write a story around it.
I would consider the novella "Fast Times at Fairmont High" by Vernor Vinge to be a good example of such a story. I don't remember there being any technology in the story that was beyond the reach of modern science and engineering, and the story was better for it, in my opinion. But I would still consider it "Science Fiction".
Imagine if you had a $10,000,000.00 budget for modern, existing technology. Then, imagine that each person on earth had access to similar technology on a casual basis, and write a story in and about the culture that co-exists with this.
Is it science fiction?
The Daleks believe they are the chosen people created by their God, Davros, and they eventually try to kill everyone.
Pretending that one is a consequence of the other is anti-semitic, isn't it?
Being able to subsequently give it away to all and sundry is a distant second, and the insistence on it being a key part of "open source" tarnishes the whole philosophy, and pretty much brings destroys any ethical and moral high ground it might have, boiling it down to: "we want stuff for free" (as opposed to "we want to be able to fix problems and/or make improvements").
Are you sure it doesn't boil down to "We have no desire to do the violence necessary to prevent people from redistributing your shit, we have no desire to fund the violence necessary to prevent people from redistributing your shit, but if you decide to try and carry out the violence necessary yourself (like that's ever going to happen), we're quite happy to do the violence necessary to lock you in a box for the rest of your life."?
That all sounds quite ethical to me.
Perhaps there's a bit of "Even though we are among those individuals wise enough to avoid your traps, we find it offensive the way you rope people into dependent relationships by getting them reliant on knowledge which you have intentionally rendered arcane, we find it threatening the way you wield those enslaved people, and for the sake of their suffering and for the sake of our safety, we want to break your control and leave you no more relevant than a man who sells wagon wheels for horse drawn carriages." in there... who knows.
That sounds quite like the moral high ground to me...
When someone uses "open source", and knows what he is talking about, he means OSI open source. There is the possibility that that someone does not yet know what open source means, or that he is trying to twist its meaning, but there is a general convention about what we mean when we say "open source".
I'm sorry, but that's just arrogant. So if someone doesn't use your exact adopted meaning, then they either are ignorant or malicious? Your opinion is showing.
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty says, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' says Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' says Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'"
Ahh, but the other question is, if you're a hack who doesn't deserve to be celebrated, how much of the money you never would have had anyway is it worth to have the cartel make you an idol to millions of people against their will?
Looks like a bid to establish a strong military presence in space before the nation comes crashing down, and ensure the capacity to finish the job remains in private hands even if they miss their timetable.
Consider this parallel development, it says a great deal about where their heads are at these days:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/darpa-plots-death-from-above-on-demand/
Seems pretty obvious what utility they're intending to put this to. Global terrorism at the push of a button.
I'd suggest trying to collaborate with Michael Reynolds. There's a film about his work, it's called Garbage Warrior. The film certainly gives you an idea the amount of frustration and suffering you can be put through by the establishment.
His website is here:
http://earthship.com/
I'm confident that he would consider what you are trying to do to be consistent with his personal mission, and would have some good advice for you if you were to get his attention.
Back in my university days, I made homebrew in residence to save money. Then I taught the other guys on my floor how to make it, and loaned them my equipment, leading to a peak production of 70 dozen beer per week on our floor. You wanna bet the women liked partying on OUR floor. :)
Personally, I don't think you can call what these guys are making beer.
Soaking it in whiskey barrels, for example... cheating. People buy those barrels and fill them with water, then let the alcohol soak out of them and drink it... they call it swish. Not just adding "flavour" with those barrels.
Using fractional freezing techniques to make it stronger is about as novel as leaving your apple cider out in the snow and separating the frozen stuff out. Personally, I wouldn't call it "beer" either after it's been treated this way.
I can see why it's expensive though. Each time you freeze and filter it, the concentration of alcohol in the frozen material increases, until you're just throwing away alcohol and not concentrating it at all. So, making one of those super strong ice hardened beers involves a large amount of waste, assuming you're not taking the "ice" and firing it into a conventional still to recover the loss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_freezing
We're getting ready to do it ourselves here at home, because operating a still is illegal, but freezing your wine isn't. We're using champagne yeast, apple juice, grape juice, blackberry juice, blueberry juice, dextrose and honey.
I almost broke the world record for strongest beer back the 80s... did my junior high school science fair project on brewing, and made an IPA that was 11.5% at a time when the record was 12%. Wish I'd been allowed to drink it :P
I should make a beer using starch as an adsorbent. Call it Beershine or something.
To answer the question, we need to qualify what education is, and what it's goals are. The education system is a place for institutionalizing people. It is a place where you attempt to overwrite an individuals personal qualities and reform them all into something arbitrary, uniform and predetermined.
If you wish to improve the performance of the educational institutions, you look to other places where people are institutionalized. Prisons, churches, psychiatric hospitals, etc.
If you object to this whole idea of institutionalizing people like prisoners and manipulating them like preachers, then you should be objecting to the educational system, period. Institutionalization is a way to disenfranchise people and keep them isolated from the world they live in, and it always has been.
If you want more capable citizens, you need to give them resources to work with and space to make mistakes. If you wait for them to prove themselves before you give them resources, they never will.
We all had our development stunted in this way, myself included. Personally, I'll consider my life a success if my grandchildren know well enough to be ashamed of us and the brutal and primitive way we live our lives.
Inasmuch as they rely on PayPal, the fault lies with Cryptome for allowing PayPal to take over responsibilities that they could not be trusted with. They should have planned things better. Groups whose goal is to increase their capital cannot be trusted. In the end, they will always take more than is justified, scorch the earth behind them and bring your plans to ruin.