If this notion were true, OpenSource should've been wiped out by the Dot-com crash almost a decade ago.
If anything, OpenSource may be the very thing that helps to get us going again! Especially if there is no money to pay for software. The OSS itself is like gold if you know how to use it and leverage it.
But we'll always have our doomsayers. Reminds me of the "Decline and Fall of the American Programmer" book written a while back -- which turned out not to be the case, which then the author wrote a follow up -- "The Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer".
One only gets away with bad prognostications by hoping no one remembers them when they are proven wrong. Bad assumption to make in this day and age of the archived and cached Internet.
If "None of the Above" wins, you either start over or let the seat go unfilled
But, when you start over, what makes you think there will be a better option? Given the choice of voting "none of the above", or voting on a guy who looks like this and says everything can be solved by nuclear weapons, how do you think the Homer Simpsons will vote?
Are you referring to something like a superdemocracy? Because I've been thinking of doing something like that as an experimental website. I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on this.
I eschew the entire notion of "democracy" altogether, but not sure what you mean by "superdemocracy", which may be more in line with what I have in mind.
Let's take this discussion privately. I am "fred at linuxbloke.com".
The entire global ecomonic system is based largely on fantasy, anyway - the fantasy that markets will always grow exponentially without bound. Clearly nonsensical, of course, but look at how most of these finiancial systems are structured, and what most "advisors" will tell their clients, etc.
This is all about self-organized cricitality, and the global system was set to collaspe no matter what. It just happened that the scream in the US caused this particular avalanche, but it could've just as easily been triggered by a Canadian scream, a German scream, etc.
Humans are funny creatures; the truth is so plain and obvious that most never even see it.
The voting system we have in Brazil isn't totally proportional, but still it raises more problems than it solves. Each party must have a minimum percentage of the vote to elect representatives. The total vote for the party is computed, a candidate for a popular party needs less votes to get elected.
A sad example of how this, very complex, voting system works is that this clown got elected and got three other representatives in his party elected when he ran as a "protest" candidate, i.e. people voted for him because they thought no one was a worthy candidate. His motto was "my name is Eneas" and his main political project was that Brazil should detonate the nuclear weapon that reportedly was developed here in the early 1980s.
Where the frell is that None of the Above option? Politicians would cower at the thought, but really every voting system should have that option. If "None of the Above" wins, you either start over or let the seat go unfilled -- I prefer the latter, as it would be a direct wonderful way for the people to trim down the size of government directly.
The real problem with most voting systems in the world is that it represents variations of "majority rule" -- you know, what most call "democracy". Instead of having the dicta of one, you have the dicta of "the majority", or whatever elected officials the majority gave the power to.
The problem in all of this, of course, is the dicta. You are forced "at gunpoint" to abide by the dicta, and to get any changes is really difficult.
What we need is a fractalization of power. I'll provide the details of that eventually.
Humans will care as long as *humans* are interacting with the "thing" that is utterly non-human and are forced to question just what it means to be "human", anyway.
Which is, I believe, the well from which all science fiction springs. If you don't believe me, it's time to re-read The Left Hand of Darkness.
Science Fiction. Therein lies the rub.
Does "Star Trek" count as real Science Fiction? Or just Science Fantasy? A Space Opera? I would say much more the latter two than the first.
Having said that, some episodes do get closer to Science Fiction than others. I think most of the Borg episodes get closer to Science Fiction than the others, and they are the ones I enjoy the most.
So how do you feel about McCoy looking like "Joey" from "Friends". I mean seriously, I just saw the photos with my fiancee (no, I am not making this up) and we both looked at each other "so that's where that Joey character went...".
And then we have Spock angry as hell (yeah, good job not showing emotions), I am trembling with fear for this movie:(
Never watched "Friends", so I have narly a clue what Joey looks like there.
And Spock showing emotions? How there they! Well, since Enterprise got away with creating an emotional Vulcan...
Well, maybe I'll give it a 2nd shot. I've recently watched Enterprise and found the same to be more or less true. First season sucked; it went up from there.
Good points, all, and the problem is that the technology in Star Trek is pure fantasy, with little to no attempts on accuracy.
Having said that, how about this: intergalatic warp so they can travel to distant galaxies, real exotic physics stuff with black holes, aliens so alien it would make your skin crawl. I mean, for real. Get away from the typical boring humanoid aliens that Star Trek keeps falling for, and have some real alien-looking aliens that interact with humans in truly alien ways.
It's all about imagination.
I was disappointed with how TNG treated the Q Continuum, making it look like some borish midwestern scene. When I first watched that episode I was all excited that they would -- FINALLY -- do something truly cool and unexpected; not the crap they actually did. A good story line and plot intro totally wasted.
Humans will care as long as *humans* are interacting with the "thing" that is utterly non-human and are forced to question just what it means to be "human", anyway. Star Trek has oversold the "being human" bit, especially with the Android. Being human is not all that great. If it were, drugs would not be such a popular form of escapism!!!!!
Any cognitively engaging activity is going to be good for the brain long-term. This is known already. Why are they wasting their research resources on this aspect?
Why oh why are they doing a remake of the old generation? I would much rather see something fresh and new. There is no way I will accept this "Spock" as being the Spock I grew up with!!!!!!!!!!
Nevermind that -- having a job like tech support is in no way reflective of your career goals. I mean, you shouldn't even bother wasting time with doing the job. Or at the very least, have the good sense to not try to make tech support out to be "field experience".
Use your head. Tech support is no better than flipping burgers at McDonalds -- in fact, it is a McJob, and you should treat it as such.
That's a much better use of your time than casting a ballot.
There's no chance that your ballot is going to affect the result, and even if it did, the candidates will do pretty much the same things. They like to pretend they're different, and they insist on the differences during the campaign, but they're really not.
Even if you believe each vote matters, then consider abstention matters as well. It shows you're not naive enough to believe in the political process, it shows you believe problems are solved through voluntary cooperation and not political force. Staying home is the most moral vote you can cast.
"Each vote matters". What a joke. That notion is flawed at the fundamental level. Matters how? How does the votes of 300 million individuals (assuming that many voted!!!!!), each with different view points and political desires, supposed to matter at all to the 2 candidates that run?
Exactly. They don't matter. They go by some mass aggregation of the most popular and sound-biteable "issues" and campaign on that. All politicians do it, including Obama. As a result, they always come out sounding like idiots. They simply cannot cater to the actual needs of millions of individuals, and it is silly to expect them to be able to do this.
So, basically, once you go beyond 100 people or so that can actually know each other, the voting system fails miserably. When you are talking millions in the electorate, individual votes count for next to nothing. Even if your man wins. It's all pointless, unless you are a completely "plain-vanilla" bell-curve type with no individuality at all.
We need a vastly different political system and process -- one which is more individual-centric, and less mass-population-media-sound-bite-mega-special-interest centric.
What can the nerds do to help the Libertarians win this election?
I am not impressed much with Obama. He's a good orator and can whip up the frenzy of the crowd he speaks to, but he has shifted his positions during his campaigns just like other politicians, and still wants to keep fighting a war in the Middle East when he came out initially against it.
Don't like McCain either.
Actually, I think this entire political system sucks and needs to be re-worked from basic principles. So tired of the "majority beat up on the minority" system -- oh, they are calling that "democracy" these days? How is Tyranny of the Majority any different than Tyranny of a Dictator? None, if you are on the short-end of that stick!
I wouldn't get too excited yet. I would like to see ruled out any false "decays" that may be due to cosmic ray flux differences or the like. We need much more research before we jump to any hasty conclusions.
Let's be certain we really see a difference that is actually due to the actual isotope decay rate differences. Alas, this is going to have to wait a few more years.:-)
Considering that minor parties can't even get 5% of the vote excluding them from coverage is probably justifiable. But what is irksome is the extent to which the basic facts of an issue are not presented to the public. Take environmental issues for example. 1/2 of all amphibian species are endangered, but no reporter will say this even when reporting on an environmental issue.
It's not justifiable because they can't get more of a percentage of the votes if they are shut out for the reason that they don't have a greater percentage of the votes! Don't you want to make your own informed voting choices? And how can you be fully informed if you are only getting complete coverage from the two dominate parties and next to nothing from the others?
And this, business inside the beltway will always continue as usual. They take choices away from you before you even know you had them.
Until I see other political parties other than the Democrats and Republicans get "balanced" coverage on the airwaves, I consider both party's plea for any kind of balance to be disingenuous.
Or perhaps the word I am looking for is "hypocritical".
Slashdot Mirror
If anything, OpenSource may be the very thing that helps to get us going again! Especially if there is no money to pay for software. The OSS itself is like gold if you know how to use it and leverage it.
But we'll always have our doomsayers. Reminds me of the "Decline and Fall of the American Programmer" book written a while back -- which turned out not to be the case, which then the author wrote a follow up -- "The Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer".
One only gets away with bad prognostications by hoping no one remembers them when they are proven wrong. Bad assumption to make in this day and age of the archived and cached Internet.
But, when you start over, what makes you think there will be a better option? Given the choice of voting "none of the above", or voting on a guy who looks like this and says everything can be solved by nuclear weapons, how do you think the Homer Simpsons will vote?
Then perhaps the seat should go unfilled, then.
Are you referring to something like a superdemocracy? Because I've been thinking of doing something like that as an experimental website. I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on this.
I eschew the entire notion of "democracy" altogether, but not sure what you mean by "superdemocracy", which may be more in line with what I have in mind.
Let's take this discussion privately. I am "fred at linuxbloke.com".
This is all about self-organized cricitality, and the global system was set to collaspe no matter what. It just happened that the scream in the US caused this particular avalanche, but it could've just as easily been triggered by a Canadian scream, a German scream, etc.
Humans are funny creatures; the truth is so plain and obvious that most never even see it.
The voting system we have in Brazil isn't totally proportional, but still it raises more problems than it solves. Each party must have a minimum percentage of the vote to elect representatives. The total vote for the party is computed, a candidate for a popular party needs less votes to get elected.
A sad example of how this, very complex, voting system works is that this clown got elected and got three other representatives in his party elected when he ran as a "protest" candidate, i.e. people voted for him because they thought no one was a worthy candidate. His motto was "my name is Eneas" and his main political project was that Brazil should detonate the nuclear weapon that reportedly was developed here in the early 1980s.
Where the frell is that None of the Above option? Politicians would cower at the thought, but really every voting system should have that option. If "None of the Above" wins, you either start over or let the seat go unfilled -- I prefer the latter, as it would be a direct wonderful way for the people to trim down the size of government directly.
The problem in all of this, of course, is the dicta. You are forced "at gunpoint" to abide by the dicta, and to get any changes is really difficult.
What we need is a fractalization of power. I'll provide the details of that eventually.
Humans will care as long as *humans* are interacting with the "thing" that is utterly non-human and are forced to question just what it means to be "human", anyway.
Which is, I believe, the well from which all science fiction springs. If you don't believe me, it's time to re-read The Left Hand of Darkness.
Science Fiction. Therein lies the rub.
Does "Star Trek" count as real Science Fiction? Or just Science Fantasy? A Space Opera? I would say much more the latter two than the first.
Having said that, some episodes do get closer to Science Fiction than others. I think most of the Borg episodes get closer to Science Fiction than the others, and they are the ones I enjoy the most.
So how do you feel about McCoy looking like "Joey" from "Friends". I mean seriously, I just saw the photos with my fiancee (no, I am not making this up) and we both looked at each other "so that's where that Joey character went...". And then we have Spock angry as hell (yeah, good job not showing emotions), I am trembling with fear for this movie :(
Never watched "Friends", so I have narly a clue what Joey looks like there.
And Spock showing emotions? How there they! Well, since Enterprise got away with creating an emotional Vulcan...
Whoops. My bad.
Well, maybe I'll give it a 2nd shot. I've recently watched Enterprise and found the same to be more or less true. First season sucked; it went up from there.
Oh, probably off gallivanting around the universe with Wesley!
Long Live Gene!
I still loved it though :)
B5 spoiled me -- DS9 simply could not measure up at all. Watched the first season or two of DS9 then totally lost interest.
Having said that, how about this: intergalatic warp so they can travel to distant galaxies, real exotic physics stuff with black holes, aliens so alien it would make your skin crawl. I mean, for real. Get away from the typical boring humanoid aliens that Star Trek keeps falling for, and have some real alien-looking aliens that interact with humans in truly alien ways.
It's all about imagination.
I was disappointed with how TNG treated the Q Continuum, making it look like some borish midwestern scene. When I first watched that episode I was all excited that they would -- FINALLY -- do something truly cool and unexpected; not the crap they actually did. A good story line and plot intro totally wasted.
Humans will care as long as *humans* are interacting with the "thing" that is utterly non-human and are forced to question just what it means to be "human", anyway. Star Trek has oversold the "being human" bit, especially with the Android. Being human is not all that great. If it were, drugs would not be such a popular form of escapism!!!!!
DS9 Was a rip-off -- and a bad one at that -- of Babylon 5, as Michael Stravinsky approached Paramount first with his idea and was rebuffed.
Right on! A good programmer will learn any programming language in a fortnight. But sadly average programers don't.
A fortnight? Up until recently, it would take me a few days to a week tops. My latest acquisition, though, Ruby, only took one day.
There is no hope in hell of enforcing a law like this. 'nuff said!
Any cognitively engaging activity is going to be good for the brain long-term. This is known already. Why are they wasting their research resources on this aspect?
Why oh why are they doing a remake of the old generation? I would much rather see something fresh and new. There is no way I will accept this "Spock" as being the Spock I grew up with!!!!!!!!!!
Though, I could use some escapism right about now!
Use your head. Tech support is no better than flipping burgers at McDonalds -- in fact, it is a McJob, and you should treat it as such.
Stay home, write open source software.
That's a much better use of your time than casting a ballot.
There's no chance that your ballot is going to affect the result, and even if it did, the candidates will do pretty much the same things. They like to pretend they're different, and they insist on the differences during the campaign, but they're really not.
Even if you believe each vote matters, then consider abstention matters as well. It shows you're not naive enough to believe in the political process, it shows you believe problems are solved through voluntary cooperation and not political force. Staying home is the most moral vote you can cast.
"Each vote matters". What a joke. That notion is flawed at the fundamental level. Matters how? How does the votes of 300 million individuals (assuming that many voted!!!!!), each with different view points and political desires, supposed to matter at all to the 2 candidates that run?
Exactly. They don't matter. They go by some mass aggregation of the most popular and sound-biteable "issues" and campaign on that. All politicians do it, including Obama. As a result, they always come out sounding like idiots. They simply cannot cater to the actual needs of millions of individuals, and it is silly to expect them to be able to do this.
So, basically, once you go beyond 100 people or so that can actually know each other, the voting system fails miserably. When you are talking millions in the electorate, individual votes count for next to nothing. Even if your man wins. It's all pointless, unless you are a completely "plain-vanilla" bell-curve type with no individuality at all.
We need a vastly different political system and process -- one which is more individual-centric, and less mass-population-media-sound-bite-mega-special-interest centric.
And I have just the thing. Stay tuned.
I am not impressed much with Obama. He's a good orator and can whip up the frenzy of the crowd he speaks to, but he has shifted his positions during his campaigns just like other politicians, and still wants to keep fighting a war in the Middle East when he came out initially against it.
Don't like McCain either.
Actually, I think this entire political system sucks and needs to be re-worked from basic principles. So tired of the "majority beat up on the minority" system -- oh, they are calling that "democracy" these days? How is Tyranny of the Majority any different than Tyranny of a Dictator? None, if you are on the short-end of that stick!
Let's be certain we really see a difference that is actually due to the actual isotope decay rate differences. Alas, this is going to have to wait a few more years. :-)
Considering that minor parties can't even get 5% of the vote excluding them from coverage is probably justifiable. But what is irksome is the extent to which the basic facts of an issue are not presented to the public. Take environmental issues for example. 1/2 of all amphibian species are endangered, but no reporter will say this even when reporting on an environmental issue.
It's not justifiable because they can't get more of a percentage of the votes if they are shut out for the reason that they don't have a greater percentage of the votes! Don't you want to make your own informed voting choices? And how can you be fully informed if you are only getting complete coverage from the two dominate parties and next to nothing from the others?
And this, business inside the beltway will always continue as usual. They take choices away from you before you even know you had them.
Or perhaps the word I am looking for is "hypocritical".