WIPO is almost fully (91% I believe) funded by IP holding multinational corporations. Their charter states that their purpose is to bring IP protection standardization to the world - which translates to mean standardizing IP protections to best benefit thier primary funders.
Developing nations and public advocacy groups are being crushed as the IP juggernaut rolls on.
Give me an example of doing something that is truly in someone's best interest that is not right. I can't think of anything that meets your criteria. You can not seperate your best interest from doing the right thing.
We can only judge the actions of ourselves and others based on our own set of rules of right and wrong. Some of these ideas are universaly agreed upon, such as the idea that it is bad take the life of another person. However, taking the life of another person in the defense of your own life or that of others is right - if there is no other way to subdue them. In that case it is the right thing, based upon the circumstances.
I can think of no circumstances where it is right to profit from lies and distortions of the truth - even more so where those lies cause unjustified injury to the reputations of others.
This is why I find issue with someone advocating profit over truth as the best interests of anyone. Saying 'any publicity is good publicity' is the real issue is also incorrect. This is confusing side effects with the real problem. Publicity, in the case of the publication of a book, is designed to generate sales - and hence increase profits, thus my analysis stands: this is an issue of means justifying the ends.
To put it simply, can the actions you do or promote pass the 'red face' test. Can you look yourself in the eye and say 'what I am doing is right; what I am doing does no harm'. Or, are you just kidding yourself?
...and you're putting words in the parent poster's mouth. The OP didn't say a thing about "ends justify the means," and I rather doubt that he believes that in any case...
Parent poster's words en toto (read slowly if your comprehension level is too low): ~ Why doesn't KB just cut his losses and slink away before he's made a greater fool of, if that's possible.
Are you kidding? He's trying to sell a book, it's 100% in his best interest to stay in the spotlight as long as possible no matter what that takes. Who's the greater fool, KB with his million dollars in book revenue or the people who laugh at him on/. all day, confident in their superiority.Who's the greater fool, KB with his million dollars in book revenue or the people who laugh at him on/. all day, confident in their superiority. ~
Looking at his whole posting, not just the piece I chose to snip, you can see where I made the inference. My question is, why does the parent poster think it is "100% in his best interest to stay in the spotlight...no matter what it takes", versus doing the right thing. I would think his 'best' interest would be printing factual information, instead of FUD.
This definitely implies, as I said, that the poster believes the 'ends justify the means'. I am not putting words in his mouth - I am restating what was said in a more direct manner that enlightens the subject matter. To paraphrase the orginal poster, "it is in his best interest to stay in the spotlight...to make money"; this certainly seems to say 'the ends' (making money), justify the means (doing whatever it takes to stay in the spotlight - by passing off FUD as valuable research).
Where do I begin? Here is a short list of things I can tick off the top of my head:
1. Blecherous command line interface (I invariably can't do various things that I take for granted from a real CLI - grep, for example). 2. Blecherous GUI interface (I invariably want to do something that the GUI does not support - punt!?) 3. Too many applications share the same DLLs - and patches to a particular DLL by one application breaks another in too many cases. 4. API stack is labyrinthine - and resultant system programming is magic and full of inconsistencies. 5. Too many exploited security holes makes having it on my network a liability. 6. The owning corporation is morally and ethically bankrupt. 7. Clippy... (*cold shivers*)
Graham does not evince doubt or uncertainty in his arguments, on a few occasions he may admit to a narrow view or knowledge but doubt or uncertainty don't seem to enter his field of vision while he writes.
Having read the free chapter at OReilly it seems to me he intends to inform from his own experience - hence the unwavering tone, 'this is what I see'. Why would he have to show doubts, if any, in such a case? Finally, why would he want to confuse his audience by switching tacks in midstream? I think the tone is perfect: informative, entertaining, and convincing all at the same time - while keeping to the point.
Who's the greater fool, KB with his million dollars in book revenue or the people who laugh at him on/. all day, confident in their superiority.
So, your hypothesis is that the ends justify the means - particularly when money is at stake? A grifter in a suit and tie is still a grifter - regardless of his social standing.
The sad thing about all of this is that really brilliant people had to take the time to formulate rebuttals to the work of this second rate hack, who's only purpose in life is to serve as the mouthpiece of special interests.
The lap protector will absorb, rather than reflect, the heat - then dissipate it at a slower rate through the air (between the spongee material), and to a lesser extent through the protector's nylon case.
By your definition, the lap protector would have to be a perfect blackbody, absorbing and radiating the energy at the same rates in order to fry the computer. In fact, the lap protector is not a blackbody at all due to the disconnect between its rates of absorbtion and radiation of the heat.
One good solution (albeit expensive) would be a lap protector made from the same material as the space shuttle tiles - which can absorb massive amounts of energy in a short period of time, yet radiate the stored energy at a very slow rate.
That may be the way you see it. However, my observations of user habits differs substantially from your experience (see previous message for details).
I can see enough in the LCD screen to determine if a picture is a complete dog or not - certainly. All those that fail go into the bit bucket. My daughter, sister in-law, wife, their friends, my father in law, and myself arrived at this mode of operation independent of any conscious attempt to standardize - so I think my observations hold some weight.
Other factors that might effect this are regional and cultural predispositions to certain modes of operation...but I wouldn't hold that as very significant.
Given that you will have a finite set of 'good' photographers (ignoring the small number of people who are improving themselves to fall into the 'good' category on a curve that represents this phenomena) who consistently take 'good' pictures (whatever that is), the resultant set of total 'good' photographs is bound to increase. The factors I listed above (free RAM instead of costly developing of film and immediate feedback and editing capabilities) serve as a catalyst for this change.
My observations are based on experience with myself and my extended family members. I observed, in both myself and other family members, the tendency to get a larger number of 'good' pictures with our digital cameras, than in previous years using film technology. I noticed that people were reluctant to shoot pictures, or shoot multiple pictures using film due to cost considerations. Making every shot count served only to provide a large pile of mostly useless pictures. On the other hand, the number of pictures downloaded from digital cameras invariably returned a larger number of useful pictures.
Finally, another factor that may play into this phenomena is the fact that digital cameras are giving people more 'shutter time'. By this I mean with cheap 'film' - in the case of basically free RAM - people are getting more practice using their cameras, and thus are showing improvement in their abilities, as a result. However, my direct observation of the facts did not corroborate this hypothesis, and so I leave that as an exercise for the reader...
Given the infinite monkey hypothesis (given an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, and time, the complete works of William Shakespeare would eventually be produced), I would assume that the total amount to 'good' pictures should be increasing.
1. The cost of developing for viewing is nil (immediate feedback). 2. You can immediately delete any bad pictures. 3. As a result you take more pictures because RAM is free.
Thus, by sheer accident of the technology, neophyte shutterbugs are finding out the secret of the pros: take as many pictures as possible - one of the bunch is bound to be a beauty!
I find it interesting that this study comes out of Washington state - home of the evil empire (Microsoft).
Has anyone checked to see who funds the particular research department at this school, who funded this particular project, and how much, if any, funding Microsoft provides for that school in general? Also, is this funded by any hardware manufacturers? (Intel, AMD, etc...)
It would benefit these companies if all of us abandoned our old computers - many of which are enjoying second lives as Linux boxes - so their DRM technologies (in conjunction with the newest hardare that has circuitry to enable DRM) become ubiquitous - in addition to the added boost to sales.
I think I will delay the destruction of my old machines until all of the sceptics questions are answered.
You wouldn't burn much extra calories because that assembly is probably only 6 to 10 pounds, at most. Try humping an 80 pound rucksack over rough terrain, for a real burn...
I found several other of the author's examples counter to established facts, as well. He is obviously not a computer scientist (but plays one on TV - I have no idea if he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express(tm), or not).
However, I agree with his ultimate conclusion: if Microsoft does not begin to focus on new business paradigms their cash cow will dry up.
Given the amount of energy spent by Microsoft to discredit open source software, and leverage the structure of digital rights management to exclusively favor incumbent proprietary software, I don't see them making a change in course any time soon. Ergo - they will diminish from a multibillion dollar enterprise, to a multimillion dollar enterprise; big enough to be a player, but less likely to be able to dictate their disjointed vision to the majority.
Change is the only constant. Unfortunately, monopolies have a tendency to forget that rule (which led to their success in the first place - ironically).
Ummmm - multiple vendor's products either didn't work, or were a pain in the ass to make work...I think that pretty much sums it up.
That is why I felt a need to standardize - once I found something that worked.
"He couldn't have done this work..."
on
Stallman vs Ken Brown
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What makes me laugh out loud is the faulty assumption that Linus could not have accomplished the job independently, due to his inexperience.
I once wrote a paper in a College English course that my professor put on the rounds with the other department teachers, as an example of some outstanding work by his students. Several of the professors leveled accusations of plagiarism against me, due to my 'inexperience' I could not have possibly created such work.
These people did not take into account that I was 28 years old at the time (I am 40 now), had been writing my whole life in and out of structured courses, and had ample time to develop my own abilities for critical thinking and composition. I ended up having to persuade them I did not plagiarise the work.
It is interesting to me that in a professional setting no one's word has weight unless 'Doctor' precedes their name, and the burden of proof does not lay with the accusers.
The drawback is, she can't fix it herself - and is at the mercy of the phone company.
Similarly, we will be at the mercy of the companies that make the hardware and provide it for 'free'. There will be little impetus to continue standards - as a hardware 'lock-in' under such circumstances will be very beneficial for the corporations.
If broadly embraced by all hardware manufacturers, this could spell the end of open source. However, the likelyhood of all manufacturers embracing this model is a slim proposition, imho.
Looking at this from a Buddist perspective might be instructive:
Dissatisfaction (or unhappiness) in ones life situation stems from several things:
1. Failing to recognize that 'self' is a fallacy - we are but transient beings, ever changing. "If the soul were permanent and unchanging--if all existence has its root something fixed--then change becomes philosophically difficult to account for (this is similar to Zeno's paradoxes)." (Wikipedia:Buddism)
2. Failing to recognize that "things are constantly coming into being, and ceasing to be. Nothing lasts." (Wikipedia:Buddism)
As a result "we desire a lasting satisfaction, but look for it amongst constantly changing phenomena. We perceive a self, and act to enhance that self by pursuing pleasure, and seek to prolong pleasure when it too is fleeting." (Wikipedia:Buddism)
Given the above, how much 'time' you spend in mundane activity is irrelevant. It is the quality of the experience, regardless of the content, rather than the quantity of time spent. If the experience decreases suffering, and thereby improves the lives of others, then you are on the right path - regardless of if you are cleaning a toilet, selling sunflower seeds, or doing something less 'boring'.
Finally, your suffering, and perhaps the suffering of others around you can be tied to one thing: your desires. Logically, you can do only two things to alleviate that suffering: remove your desires, or make different choices to satisfy those desires. If you value time with your family over material wealth, then find a job near home where your commute time is small to nonexistent - perhaps with shortened hours. If it is really important to you, you could probably find a job at home that would allow you to make as much or more than you make now. However, are you willing to make other sacrifices to accomplish that? How important is it to you, and would it make your family's life better in the long run? In either case, you may need to remove your desire for one or the other thing.
Ideally, we only need sustenance (food, water, shelter), and want for nothing else. In reality, we are beings with egos which makes such an austere lifestyle a difficult proposition. The Budda realised this, and found that the right path was the 'middle way', a balance between these opposing forces. At first glance, this seems counterintuitive, yet we see paradoxes that exist side by side in nature(i.e. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in quantum mechanics, and various optical illusions) all of the time. Freeing your mind of your desire, will then, paradoxically, allow you to focus on what is really important in your life - and illuminate your path forward.
* These are my own conclusions arrived at through study of basic Buddist principles - IANABM (I am not a Buddist monk).
This is precisely why I standardized my whole network on Linksys products. Once I did, all of my compatability problems went away - and administration is a breeze.
I have a carboard box full of old NICs that I acquired cheaply, thinking at the time that I would be able to save a buck. What I saved in money, I lost in time trying to get all the disparate cards to work on various machine architectures and operating systems. I finally broke down and bought all Linksys - at the time a basic 10/100 ethernet NIC was only $10 (now they are $25...must have caught them on sale at the time...) I plugged them in my Linux and Windows machines - and they just worked, right out of the box.
Get her an old Commodore or Atari computer with Basic built-in, and one of those old program listing books to go with it (or you can fire up an old basic interpreter on an existing machine for the same effect).
This will do one of two things:
1. After typing in 500 lines of code, she will decide to drop the whole silly idea.
2. After finishing off the book and loving all the little noddy programs, she will want more.
At which point you introduce her to Python. If she is really into it, you might suggest some computer programming courses at the local community college to expand her horizons.
If everyone did only what inspired them, alot of the unglamorous products and services we take for granted would not exist, and everyone's lives would be less for it (of course, I could do without my MTV, and the endless wasteland of product differentiation...)
Some people don't have any aspirations beyond drinking beer and fishing, and no vision beyond determining what is for dinner. That is fine. Everyone has a purpose in the grand scheme of things, or if they don't, one will be issued to them at some point out of necessity. Perhaps raising children is their life's world-changing work, while their job is just that - a job to put food on the table. I know this might be a shock to you, but life does not have to center around your occupation; your occupation can be on the periphery.
The really free, self actualized people are the ones living under the highway overpass in cardboard boxes. The rest of us do the best we can with what we have, and what necessity dictates.
Slashdot Mirror
WIPO is almost fully (91% I believe) funded by IP holding multinational corporations. Their charter states that their purpose is to bring IP protection standardization to the world - which translates to mean standardizing IP protections to best benefit thier primary funders.
Developing nations and public advocacy groups are being crushed as the IP juggernaut rolls on.
Okay...what does all that mealymouthed mumbojumbo mean to me?
Give me an example of doing something that is truly in someone's best interest that is not right. I can't think of anything that meets your criteria. You can not seperate your best interest from doing the right thing.
We can only judge the actions of ourselves and others based on our own set of rules of right and wrong. Some of these ideas are universaly agreed upon, such as the idea that it is bad take the life of another person. However, taking the life of another person in the defense of your own life or that of others is right - if there is no other way to subdue them. In that case it is the right thing, based upon the circumstances.
I can think of no circumstances where it is right to profit from lies and distortions of the truth - even more so where those lies cause unjustified injury to the reputations of others.
This is why I find issue with someone advocating profit over truth as the best interests of anyone. Saying 'any publicity is good publicity' is the real issue is also incorrect. This is confusing side effects with the real problem. Publicity, in the case of the publication of a book, is designed to generate sales - and hence increase profits, thus my analysis stands: this is an issue of means justifying the ends.
To put it simply, can the actions you do or promote pass the 'red face' test. Can you look yourself in the eye and say 'what I am doing is right; what I am doing does no harm'. Or, are you just kidding yourself?
Actually, in Minnesota it would be ill tempered sea bass...sharks with frikin' lazer beams being a saltwater fish, and all.
...and you're putting words in the parent poster's mouth. The OP didn't say a thing about "ends justify the means," and I rather doubt that he believes that in any case...
/. all day, confident in their superiority.Who's the greater fool, KB with his million dollars in book revenue or the people who laugh at him on /. all day, confident in their superiority.
Parent poster's words en toto (read slowly if your comprehension level is too low):
~
Why doesn't KB just cut his losses and slink away before he's made a greater fool of, if that's possible.
Are you kidding? He's trying to sell a book, it's 100% in his best interest to stay in the spotlight as long as possible no matter what that takes. Who's the greater fool, KB with his million dollars in book revenue or the people who laugh at him on
~
Looking at his whole posting, not just the piece I chose to snip, you can see where I made the inference. My question is, why does the parent poster think it is "100% in his best interest to stay in the spotlight...no matter what it takes", versus doing the right thing. I would think his 'best' interest would be printing factual information, instead of FUD.
This definitely implies, as I said, that the poster believes the 'ends justify the means'. I am not putting words in his mouth - I am restating what was said in a more direct manner that enlightens the subject matter. To paraphrase the orginal poster, "it is in his best interest to stay in the spotlight...to make money"; this certainly seems to say 'the ends' (making money), justify the means (doing whatever it takes to stay in the spotlight - by passing off FUD as valuable research).
Where do I begin? Here is a short list of things I can tick off the top of my head:
1. Blecherous command line interface (I invariably can't do various things that I take for granted from a real CLI - grep, for example).
2. Blecherous GUI interface (I invariably want to do something that the GUI does not support - punt!?)
3. Too many applications share the same DLLs - and patches to a particular DLL by one application breaks another in too many cases.
4. API stack is labyrinthine - and resultant system programming is magic and full of inconsistencies.
5. Too many exploited security holes makes having it on my network a liability.
6. The owning corporation is morally and ethically bankrupt.
7. Clippy... (*cold shivers*)
Graham does not evince doubt or uncertainty in his arguments, on a few occasions he may admit to a narrow view or knowledge but doubt or uncertainty don't seem to enter his field of vision while he writes.
Having read the free chapter at OReilly it seems to me he intends to inform from his own experience - hence the unwavering tone, 'this is what I see'. Why would he have to show doubts, if any, in such a case? Finally, why would he want to confuse his audience by switching tacks in midstream? I think the tone is perfect: informative, entertaining, and convincing all at the same time - while keeping to the point.
Who's the greater fool, KB with his million dollars in book revenue or the people who laugh at him on /. all day, confident in their superiority.
So, your hypothesis is that the ends justify the means - particularly when money is at stake? A grifter in a suit and tie is still a grifter - regardless of his social standing.
The sad thing about all of this is that really brilliant people had to take the time to formulate rebuttals to the work of this second rate hack, who's only purpose in life is to serve as the mouthpiece of special interests.
Your item number 1 is oversimplified.
The lap protector will absorb, rather than reflect, the heat - then dissipate it at a slower rate through the air (between the spongee material), and to a lesser extent through the protector's nylon case.
By your definition, the lap protector would have to be a perfect blackbody, absorbing and radiating the energy at the same rates in order to fry the computer. In fact, the lap protector is not a blackbody at all due to the disconnect between its rates of absorbtion and radiation of the heat.
One good solution (albeit expensive) would be a lap protector made from the same material as the space shuttle tiles - which can absorb massive amounts of energy in a short period of time, yet radiate the stored energy at a very slow rate.
That may be the way you see it. However, my observations of user habits differs substantially from your experience (see previous message for details).
I can see enough in the LCD screen to determine if a picture is a complete dog or not - certainly. All those that fail go into the bit bucket. My daughter, sister in-law, wife, their friends, my father in law, and myself arrived at this mode of operation independent of any conscious attempt to standardize - so I think my observations hold some weight.
Other factors that might effect this are regional and cultural predispositions to certain modes of operation...but I wouldn't hold that as very significant.
Teoma is a fairly decent search engine; not open source, however.
I better explain my reasoning in more detail.
Given that you will have a finite set of 'good' photographers (ignoring the small number of people who are improving themselves to fall into the 'good' category on a curve that represents this phenomena) who consistently take 'good' pictures (whatever that is), the resultant set of total 'good' photographs is bound to increase. The factors I listed above (free RAM instead of costly developing of film and immediate feedback and editing capabilities) serve as a catalyst for this change.
My observations are based on experience with myself and my extended family members. I observed, in both myself and other family members, the tendency to get a larger number of 'good' pictures with our digital cameras, than in previous years using film technology. I noticed that people were reluctant to shoot pictures, or shoot multiple pictures using film due to cost considerations. Making every shot count served only to provide a large pile of mostly useless pictures. On the other hand, the number of pictures downloaded from digital cameras invariably returned a larger number of useful pictures.
Finally, another factor that may play into this phenomena is the fact that digital cameras are giving people more 'shutter time'. By this I mean with cheap 'film' - in the case of basically free RAM - people are getting more practice using their cameras, and thus are showing improvement in their abilities, as a result. However, my direct observation of the facts did not corroborate this hypothesis, and so I leave that as an exercise for the reader...
Given the infinite monkey hypothesis (given an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, and time, the complete works of William Shakespeare would eventually be produced), I would assume that the total amount to 'good' pictures should be increasing.
1. The cost of developing for viewing is nil (immediate feedback).
2. You can immediately delete any bad pictures.
3. As a result you take more pictures because RAM is free.
Thus, by sheer accident of the technology, neophyte shutterbugs are finding out the secret of the pros: take as many pictures as possible - one of the bunch is bound to be a beauty!
I find it interesting that this study comes out of Washington state - home of the evil empire (Microsoft).
Has anyone checked to see who funds the particular research department at this school, who funded this particular project, and how much, if any, funding Microsoft provides for that school in general? Also, is this funded by any hardware manufacturers? (Intel, AMD, etc...)
It would benefit these companies if all of us abandoned our old computers - many of which are enjoying second lives as Linux boxes - so their DRM technologies (in conjunction with the newest hardare that has circuitry to enable DRM) become ubiquitous - in addition to the added boost to sales.
I think I will delay the destruction of my old machines until all of the sceptics questions are answered.
You wouldn't burn much extra calories because that assembly is probably only 6 to 10 pounds, at most. Try humping an 80 pound rucksack over rough terrain, for a real burn...
Well there goes the Patent Offices' investment in 3000 Magic 8-Balls...
I found several other of the author's examples counter to established facts, as well. He is obviously not a computer scientist (but plays one on TV - I have no idea if he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express(tm), or not).
However, I agree with his ultimate conclusion: if Microsoft does not begin to focus on new business paradigms their cash cow will dry up.
Given the amount of energy spent by Microsoft to discredit open source software, and leverage the structure of digital rights management to exclusively favor incumbent proprietary software, I don't see them making a change in course any time soon. Ergo - they will diminish from a multibillion dollar enterprise, to a multimillion dollar enterprise; big enough to be a player, but less likely to be able to dictate their disjointed vision to the majority.
Change is the only constant. Unfortunately, monopolies have a tendency to forget that rule (which led to their success in the first place - ironically).
It takes money to make money. I don't know about you, but I don't have $100,000 laying around to invest in the stock market.
Ummmm - multiple vendor's products either didn't work, or were a pain in the ass to make work...I think that pretty much sums it up.
That is why I felt a need to standardize - once I found something that worked.
What makes me laugh out loud is the faulty assumption that Linus could not have accomplished the job independently, due to his inexperience.
I once wrote a paper in a College English course that my professor put on the rounds with the other department teachers, as an example of some outstanding work by his students. Several of the professors leveled accusations of plagiarism against me, due to my 'inexperience' I could not have possibly created such work.
These people did not take into account that I was 28 years old at the time (I am 40 now), had been writing my whole life in and out of structured courses, and had ample time to develop my own abilities for critical thinking and composition. I ended up having to persuade them I did not plagiarise the work.
It is interesting to me that in a professional setting no one's word has weight unless 'Doctor' precedes their name, and the burden of proof does not lay with the accusers.
The drawback is, she can't fix it herself - and is at the mercy of the phone company.
Similarly, we will be at the mercy of the companies that make the hardware and provide it for 'free'. There will be little impetus to continue standards - as a hardware 'lock-in' under such circumstances will be very beneficial for the corporations.
If broadly embraced by all hardware manufacturers, this could spell the end of open source. However, the likelyhood of all manufacturers embracing this model is a slim proposition, imho.
Looking at this from a Buddist perspective might be instructive:
Dissatisfaction (or unhappiness) in ones life situation stems from several things:
1. Failing to recognize that 'self' is a fallacy - we are but transient beings, ever changing. "If the soul were permanent and unchanging--if all existence has its root something fixed--then change becomes philosophically difficult to account for (this is similar to Zeno's paradoxes)." (Wikipedia:Buddism)
2. Failing to recognize that "things are constantly coming into being, and ceasing to be. Nothing lasts." (Wikipedia:Buddism)
As a result "we desire a lasting satisfaction, but look for it amongst constantly changing phenomena. We perceive a self, and act to enhance that self by pursuing pleasure, and seek to prolong pleasure when it too is fleeting." (Wikipedia:Buddism)
Given the above, how much 'time' you spend in mundane activity is irrelevant. It is the quality of the experience, regardless of the content, rather than the quantity of time spent. If the experience decreases suffering, and thereby improves the lives of others, then you are on the right path - regardless of if you are cleaning a toilet, selling sunflower seeds, or doing something less 'boring'.
Finally, your suffering, and perhaps the suffering of others around you can be tied to one thing: your desires. Logically, you can do only two things to alleviate that suffering: remove your desires, or make different choices to satisfy those desires. If you value time with your family over material wealth, then find a job near home where your commute time is small to nonexistent - perhaps with shortened hours. If it is really important to you, you could probably find a job at home that would allow you to make as much or more than you make now. However, are you willing to make other sacrifices to accomplish that? How important is it to you, and would it make your family's life better in the long run? In either case, you may need to remove your desire for one or the other thing.
Ideally, we only need sustenance (food, water, shelter), and want for nothing else. In reality, we are beings with egos which makes such an austere lifestyle a difficult proposition. The Budda realised this, and found that the right path was the 'middle way', a balance between these opposing forces. At first glance, this seems counterintuitive, yet we see paradoxes that exist side by side in nature(i.e. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in quantum mechanics, and various optical illusions) all of the time. Freeing your mind of your desire, will then, paradoxically, allow you to focus on what is really important in your life - and illuminate your path forward.
* These are my own conclusions arrived at through study of basic Buddist principles - IANABM (I am not a Buddist monk).
This is precisely why I standardized my whole network on Linksys products. Once I did, all of my compatability problems went away - and administration is a breeze.
I have a carboard box full of old NICs that I acquired cheaply, thinking at the time that I would be able to save a buck. What I saved in money, I lost in time trying to get all the disparate cards to work on various machine architectures and operating systems. I finally broke down and bought all Linksys - at the time a basic 10/100 ethernet NIC was only $10 (now they are $25...must have caught them on sale at the time...) I plugged them in my Linux and Windows machines - and they just worked, right out of the box.
Get her an old Commodore or Atari computer with Basic built-in, and one of those old program listing books to go with it (or you can fire up an old basic interpreter on an existing machine for the same effect).
This will do one of two things:
1. After typing in 500 lines of code, she will decide to drop the whole silly idea.
2. After finishing off the book and loving all the little noddy programs, she will want more.
At which point you introduce her to Python. If she is really into it, you might suggest some computer programming courses at the local community college to expand her horizons.
If everyone did only what inspired them, alot of the unglamorous products and services we take for granted would not exist, and everyone's lives would be less for it (of course, I could do without my MTV, and the endless wasteland of product differentiation...)
Some people don't have any aspirations beyond drinking beer and fishing, and no vision beyond determining what is for dinner. That is fine. Everyone has a purpose in the grand scheme of things, or if they don't, one will be issued to them at some point out of necessity. Perhaps raising children is their life's world-changing work, while their job is just that - a job to put food on the table. I know this might be a shock to you, but life does not have to center around your occupation; your occupation can be on the periphery.
The really free, self actualized people are the ones living under the highway overpass in cardboard boxes. The rest of us do the best we can with what we have, and what necessity dictates.