This is a common mistake made by ridiculous people. Tyranny doesn't prevent people from speaking out. People under the tyranny of the Nazis, the Fascists, the various incarnations of Communism, or even the brutal dictatorial regimes of the feudal system -- they could all speak out to their hearts' content. They just had to face the prospect of ending up dead or in jail, or having their rights severely curtailed. Government harassment is a very common way that tyrants silence their opposition while maintaining the illusion of peace and freedom. Government harassment -- exactly like what the US is doing to reporters, scientists, and critics of the government.
You lost your right to say that Americans are free when you didn't butcher Dubya and string up the supreme court for imposing their own opinions on a set of election results that were not even remotely clear, and refusing to even hear the appeals of the tens of thousands of disenfranchised voters that were barred from voting just for being poor and having names that were too similar to those of a convicted criminals in other states. That you don't lynch-mob government officials that engage in gerrymandering is proof enough that you don't even care if your elections are even remotely representative. Even allowing the existence of "lobbying" (AKA bribery) is an embarassment for any nation in which it occurs. America is not free, it is not democratic, and it is by far the stupidest nation in the Western Hemisphere. Consider this: it is the only non-Muslim nation where there are actually a sizable number of people that question the value of literacy... and are willing to elect leaders that lack it.
If the player does anything whatsoever to evade any kind of copy protection (including techniques as feeble as region coding), then it is illegal in the US courtesy of Bill Clinton's masterpiece -- the DMCA. So the US doesn't HAVE to ban Chinese players that work around region coding: they are already covered by existing legislation.
But if you're not sure, look at what happens to US stores that try to sell DVD players and gaming systems with non-US region codes. They get DMCA complaints filed against them -- they are circumventing a copy protection scheme, and the DMCA forbids that.
I hate to burst your bubble, but that really is how US is going. Too many Americans are too stupid to vote sanely, and so they end up with jackasses like that don't even read the legislation that they vote for. The PATRIOT act? The DMCA? Copyright term extension after copyright term extension? Pretending that Cuba is an enemy while still operating a military base there? Pulling out of Afghanistan and letting Bin Laden go free, just so that there would be troops available to be killed in Iraq for no reason? What kind of president pardons 140 people in one day? -- with that many, it's completely impossible that he put any thought into them. "Read my lips -- no new taxes", just two years before raising taxes. Lieing under oath before the supreme court? Selecting Dan Quayle as a running mate should be an automatic disqualification for holding office. Voting for a senile actor with an economic policy that whose plausibility is equated with magic? And let's not forget the man that oversaw the almost complete destabilization of the middle east and used taxpayer money to train fundamentalist terrorists in... guess where -- Afghanistan (and Pakistan).
American politics are easily the world's stupidest. I suppose that's a good thing in some ways, since it frees up all the sane, competent Americans to do real work like designing buildings, inventing new caffeinated treats, and finding news parts of the pizza in which to hide cheese. Still, you'd think that the American public would have at least marginally higher expections of their leaders.
Hey, the CD Tax is basically just a national subscription to a music download service called "The Internet". We pay a small fee on our media and get to download as much music as we like to fill that media up.
Well, not really. But for all intents and purposes, that's how the levy plays out. It's just a shame that the levy monies don't actually go to artists, but rather to the CRIA or whatever the hell they're calling themselves these days.
It's funny that one of the few examples of a monopoly that wasn't a clear-cut disaster for the people is also one that the US split up. The US is odd that way -- Canada, by contrast, tends to tolerate monopolies unless they are causing problems.
I'd guess that Canada may just be lucky in that any money that a corporation might spend to manipulate a government will invariably be spent on the American government, rather than Canada's. As a result, the US tends to get stuck with the very worst in government toadying towards business special interests (at least the worst as far as Democracies go -- see "Fascism" for further information on just how ridiculous business manipulation of politics can get). The governments in America's immediate shadow are left in a position to be much more sane about whether they bust up a monopoly or just keep a watchful eye on it to keep it honest. That, of course, is always the peril of being the biggest show in town; you attract all of the negative attention.
American is Internet Explorer -- a big moderately functional package that attracts all of the attention of those with a mind to find exploits in the system. Canada and Mexico get to slink by as Mozilla and Opera (decide for yourself which is which) -- the holes might be there, but no one is looking for them because all eyes are on the big dog. So they come off looking relatively good, if a tad obscure and unpopular.
The American people have all the say they need. They CAN have things differently -- all they have to do is: a) Not vote Democrat. If possible, have your local Democratic candidate stuffed into a small box labelled "AIDS Queer" and shipped to Texas for a ceremonial shit-kicking.
b) Not vote Republican. If possible, have your local Republican candidate locked in a cage and forced to Go-Go dance for the homeless insane at a drug-rave to an all Marilyn Manson club mix.
c) Not vote for any politician that breaks their election promises. If possible, sue them for false advertising. Multiply this by the number of voters in the constituency, do it in small claims court, and then laugh as he/she spends the next twenty years in court, paying out $1000/lawsuit for defrauding the voters.
d) Not vote for any politician who violates the constitution in any way whatsoever. If possible, have such politicians hung as traitors. It's only fair.
e) Not vote for any politician that is illiterate or can't speak basic English properly. Flubbing a time honoured adage and replacing half of it with a line from a song by The Who qualifies as not being capable of speaking English properly.
g) Not vote for anyone that uses religion, blind patriotism, troop-support, family values, or any other form of imaginary bullshit to win votes. Everyone wants families to thrive, for the troops to not die, and for churches to not be burnt down. Anyone using those things to win votes us just trying to distract you from the fact that they're a complete fuckup, and could very well be sufficiently incompetent to cause families to starve, the troops to die in pointless wars, and for churches to be burnt down by the ATF.
h) If you were too goddam fucking stupid to follow any of the aforementioned rules, then you have CHOSEN the current state of affairs. This makes you a fuckup of the highest calibre. Fortunately, firearms are still legal in most of the US; purchase one and use it to permanently remove yourself from the electorate / genepool.
See? It's easy. Americans totally have it within themselves to improve things. It's just that most Americans are collosal retards, and don't feel obliged to vote with their brain rather than... whatever organ is responsible for being that goddam fucking stupid. Possibly the anus, but I hesitate to ascribe such odious qualities to such a useful bodypart.
Politicians only listen to businesses because voters LET them. If you just didn't vote for politicians that took bribes (AKA: campaign contributions and lobbying), there would be no problem. Almost every other democratic nation on Earth has had the sense to engage in serious campaign reform for precisely this reason. You have to wonder about a people that are so goddam fucking stupid that they see absolutely nothing wrong with their politicians setting up an entire network of systematic bribery, working against the people, and being complete sleazebags out to rob the public coffers for every last penny.
It's probably better that they DO start hyping these things prematurely to drum up capital -- how else do you expect them to fully develop their research? There are limits to public funding, particularly in this age when everyone suddenly seems to be very grumpy about any form of taxation that isn't used for killing foreigners and encouraging their families and friends to become terrorists. In any case, venture capital isn't for ideas that are totally fleshed out and ready to be marketed. It's for ideas that are still in the experimental phase.
I think you're confusing free markets with capitalism. Capitalism is all about monopolies, corruption, and destroying the competition. The entire idea is to take everything you can at any cost. Free markets are a different beast, and are a bit closer to what western nations (and even supposedly "communist" nations, these days) strive for. Capitalism is what we used to do back in the days of wondrous events like potato famines and great depressions.
Going to mexico to buy things that are banned in America? Isn't that evidence that things are fucked? And it's not just cigars; we also import resources (nickel and cobalt, apparently) from Cuba, we can travel there on vacation (which a remarkable number of people I know have done), etc. We actually TRADE with Cuba, in a serious sense. America, meanwhile, posts security guards in the American zones of airports to make sure that Americans aren't trying to board flights to Cuba from other countries. Nice control-freak government you've got there. You should be proud that your ancestors died so that your government can decide where you go on vacation. I'm sure they would think that taking a British cannon round to the face was totally worthwhile to guarantee that their descendants would someday be sent to jail for duplicating a DVD (despite it being explicitly permitted in the constitution) or sharing (which the bible explicitly encourages, if you happen to think that the bible warrants anything other than scornful curiosity) artistic works.
There's a list as long as your arm of tariffs imposed by the US to protect American workers from having to actually compete with the rest of the world. A remarkable number of products can't be exported at all, or only to a handful of friendly nations. Many types of software are completely banned in the US (it's interesting how most Linux distros have a "non-US" repository for software that Americans believe will destroy their economy and completely unhinge people's morality).
Canada has some serious issues regarding free markets; but we're nowhere near as schizoid about it as Americans. At the very least we don't run around screaming about the evils of communism, trumpeting ourselves as the saviours of capitalism, and then prohibit people from engaging in basic reasonable forms of trade. The fact that America violates the free trade agreements that the US itself agitated for... pretty much says it all.
That's one of the nice things about Canada -- we can freely buy a lot of the things that Americans can't due to retarded embargoes. We have cuban cigars at the store where I work. They're expensive, since they have to be flown in, but we have them.
You know, for a country that spends so much time braying about its love of capitalism, Americans sure do their best to prevent any capitalism from happening. Cubans want to buy and sell their products in American markts? Sorry, no can do. Foreigners want to buy computer chips? Obviously they all just want to make nukes (forget for a moment that the computations are the easiest part of the entire processs, with or without computers...). China makes quality video players that aren't deliberately crippled? That's GOT to be banned -- using a product that you paid money for is supposed to unpleasant. Now China wants to make a quality video player that has even stronger DRM than domestic video players, and isn't encumbered by patent royalties; that's somehow evil as well. Seriously, who are the REAL communists here?
It's sad that "socialist", "liberal" Canada embraces capitalism and free trade so much more fully than Americans, who've been duped into thinking that a "free market" means that you get to choose which state-mandated church you attend while the government works overtime to inhibit competition and international trade.
Really? Because I thought that was exactly what James Kopp did.
For perspective on the "ethics" of "Christians":
According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation, an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 3 kidnappings, 375 death threats, 655 anthrax threats, 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 89 attempted bombings or arsons, 1347 incidences of trespassing, 1213 incidences of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid, in addition to other disruptive and violent occurrences.
Let's be honest now -- there are plenty of Christians that sit around planning ways to kill the nonbelievers. Just like there are Muslims that sit around thinking of ways to kill heretics, just like there are communist radicals and anarcho-syndicalists that plan murders of democratic leaders, etc. Humans are violent monsters, and ideologies make them even more monstrous than usual. Christians are no better than other group of murderous thugs on this planet. And if you don't believe me, visit an abortion clinic sometime and check out how serious the security is. That's the kind of climate of fear that Christian terrorists create.
Still not convinced? A wonder group of faithful men and women.These guys are just great, huh? Are you sure that Christians are never violent and don't use violence as a means of political and social change? If you think I'm blowing what they do out of proportion, just check out the Army of God website. They make absolutely no bones about it: they support and encourage the murder of doctors. Or David Lewis Rice, who murdered an attorney for (as he saw it) spreading atheism. The list goes on and on.
The Stewart and Colbert team is, let's face it, brilliant. They didn't just tak the pulse of American politics, they ran it through an MRI. They have that bitch's number. Every time they get a chance, they make the big media look like the biggest chumps in the world. Insulting Bush was just dessert for Colbert -- the meal was lambasting the press corp in their position of strength. He cut them apart on their own turf.
People who are even remotely clued in to what's going on in American politics (by which I mean people who aren't stupid enough to have sworn their loyalty to either of the bands of crooks) can't help but admire what they're doing. And Slashdot has an unusually high concentration of people with the insight to see how big media is destroying whatever was positive about Democracy -- people who get that CNN and Fox News are handing America over to Fascism as surely as if they'd put the Blackshirts into power personally.
Is it really any wonder that almost everyone here loves Colbert and what he's doing?
You're SO right! Terrorism is such a big threat! Terrorists have already killed as many Americans as car accidents do in a single month!
Okay, here in the real world, terrorism is such a paltry weak threat as to be laughable. More people die because they can't afford healthcare each year than were killed in the 9/11 attack. You want security and safety? You could get a national healthcare system for half the price of the Iraq war and make Americans vastly safer.
Alternatively, you could grow some balls, stop crying like a pathetic baby, and realize that you live in one of the safest nations on Earth, despite Bush's best attempts to rile up terrorists against you and the DHS's insistence on spending all of its time harassing small businesses and American patriots that happen to be slightly too brown for their own good.
And before you criticize people for not tolerating different opinions, consider for a moment that you are posting about how much you hate Colbert, Stewart, all liberals, not to mention anyone who isn't terrified every single moment of every single day, anyone who still manages to laugh at the fact that politicians are invariably drawn from amongst the very shittiest human beings on the entire planet. It's not like they're giving away national secrets -- they're laughing at the fact you're so fucking stupid that you voted for a man who can't read above the 2nd grade level and is so goddam retarded that he doesn't know how that expression about being fooled twice goes.
The whole world is laughing at America, at its stupidity, at its abject cowardice, at its irrationality. Colbert and Stewart are trying to help you see the joke so that you can do better next time.
This really underscores the problems with one government supporting another. It makes the recipient beholden to the donator. It can work reasonably well when the nations in question are peers (or a reasonable proximity thereof), like American financial support and commonwealth material support of Britain during WW2. But when the nations have a major power inbalance between them? The results are usually destructive. American and Soviet influence over small nations during the cold war typify this.
It's one thing to help the people of another nation, by financing the construction of hospitals and schools and that kind of thing. But giving money to the government just buys influence over that government. It's great the Hamas can't be as belligerent and stupid as they would like... but without the opportunity to make their own mistakes and get beaten down for them, wont Palestinians just keep blaming America for their troubles? It's kind of scary that the majority of the Palestinian government's employees were being bankrolled by America and the EU in the first place. That is NOT a reasonable way to run a nation.
If America and the EU want to help, they should do what America did in the past to spread democracy -- set up a trade structure where the people of the recipient nation get tons and tons of cheap American-made crap. It's hard to hate the people that manufactured your espresso machine or underwear. Voting only takes place two or three times a decade. Church/Synagogue/Mosque is once a week. Coffee is two or three times a DAY. MP3 players can offer DOZENS of hours of entertainment a week. A microwave can easily save you an hour of labour each day. A comfortable pair of shoes can make you feel better with every single footstep for an entire year or more -- no political movement in history can offer that kind of comfort. Would you rather spend four hours playing a videogame, or four hours getting brainwashed to hate people that you've never met? There's a reason that consumeristic nations don't have many civil wars, genocidal militias, or tribal warlords...
Consumerism has its own negative consequences, but it's done more for world peace than any other factor in all of history. Why should I die in a pointless war of conquest, when there are so many things that I don't own yet? I'll kill defend my nation -- after all, that's where all my stuff is. I'll try to keep our army here; sending them out to wage war costs money that I'd rather spend on videogames. Etc.
I know that many universities place their Computer Science departments within the faculty of Math. Computer science isn't quite the same thing as programming or software engineering, but it definitely illustrates the point.
Regarding the question of software development at least, I'd say the problem is that people trying to make software are dealing with three completely distinct problems at once:
The development of the program's logic and algorithms. This is unquestionably a mathematical problem.
Writing the code in a sane fashion. This is a creative task, like writing some prose or drawing a diagram.
Making software development happen. This is very much an engineering task -- determine requirements, constraints, budget, timeframe, plans for getting everything done, turning the plan into something that programmers can actually interpret into useful code (the amount of code written that doesn't actually contribute to solving business requirements is startling; successfully interpreting requirements to programmers is nontrivial), management of subtasks, getting the people working on different pieces to work together properly, verification of the components and whole, etcetera. It sounds like a lot of work... and it is. 80% of large software projects fail because, as a race, we pretty much suck diseased manatee balls.
Ultimately, what you end up with is that writing a good piece of software is an engineering task like building a bridge, except that structural engineer has the luxury of hiring comparitively cheap and uniformly skilled construction workers. The software engineer has to hire creative, mathematically-proficient, technically skilled people with a skillset that changes monthly and varies wildly from person to person. And who ideally understand enough of the engineering to deal with all of the planning and verification thingies that need to be done.
That's my perspective anyway, from my brief time in the industry...
True enough. Even the definition of integers is pretty abstract. 3 is defined as {{{{}}, {}}, {{}}, {}} under the set-theory definition, which I believe is the standard one these days. The definition of irrational numbers using Dedekind cuts is even more abstract. It's hard to ascribe anything even remotely resembling concrete reality to these things.
Well, he didn't necessarily claim that his "1/0=infinity" rules are conventional algebraic rules -- you're implicitely assuming that multiplication of his "infinity" symbol is commutative or associative.
(infinity) = 1 / 0
0 * (infinity) = 0 * 1 / 0
Notice how you have to apply the commutative law to the RHDS to cancel the 0?
(infinity) = 1 / 0
(infinity) * 0 = (1 / 0) * 0
Now you have to apply to associative law to the RHS if you want to cancel the 0. If Bertrand Russel taught us anything, it's that you can't assume these things when dealing with infinity. You can't even make blind assumptions with 0; the classic 1=2 pseudoproof demonstrates how easy it is to fuck up when performing normal algebraic operations if you don't watch out for 0.
I'm not supporting this idea, since I don't have much use for (infinity) = 1/0 -- since it treats infinity too much like an actual number (like, would 7/0 equal 7infinity? No thank you). But you can't play willy nilly with infinity in quite the way that is being described.
... you say that like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with restructuring math? As you say, it's been done many times, and some of those times it has been restructured to positive effect. Designing a new system is great, if it's a good system. Furthermore (and this is my favourite line, since it makes no sense at all) "inventing his own false reality"?! Mathematics is not reality in any sense, false or otherwise. Mathematics is just dumb little symbols on paper that can be replaced by other dumb little symbols according to ridiculous rules. This is no different than adding i or omega or negatives or the aleph numbers or defining hyperbolic geometries or any other new mathematical idea. It could be much less useful than those ideas (and it probably is, since it depends on 1/0 being infinity and -1/0 being negative infinity, which isn't very practical), but it's no more true or false than they are since mathematics is totally imaginary to begin with.
Are you really that clueless? Complex numbers (the sum of an imaginary number and a real number) have been used in electronics engineering for a yonk's age now. Using infinity (just a symbol that doesn't correspond to any actual number) in equations is a staple of physics, and has been for centuries. Computer scientists perform very relevant proofs about how algorithms will run on very real computers using completely imaginary "Turing Machines" as a proof tool.
ALL Mathematics is COMPLETELY synthetic. That's the whole point -- that's the power of mathematics. You can define any set of rules, any set of axioms, any set of symbols, and start deducing. If the tools you need don't exist, you make them up. Nothing is more valuable in mathematics than a nice, clean, clear definition that increases the expressivity of math. Since math has no independent existence anyway, you can get away with pretty much anything so long as your new system has useful properties. Mathematicians with the guts to make things up as they go along end up with their names in textbooks and attached to great theorems, assuming what they made is conceptually useful (whether nullity is conceptually useful remains to be seen; a written description of the definitions would be nice).
Mathematicians that only do calculations that we already know about and are comfortable with? They're called accountants, and they have no friends. Seriously though -- since when did making up new ideas become a bad thing? I was under the (apparently mistaken) view that creativity was a praiseworthy trait.
That is possibly the most insane thing I've ever seen. These basically are shifting from having a mutalistic relationship with the capitalist economy (benefitting from what it produces and contributing their own labour to it) to a comensalistic relationship with it (benefitting from what it produces but contributing nothing). So the like capitalism enough to consume its products, but not to actually contribute. Subsistence farmers at least have a vague claim to standing outside of capitalism. Freegans are just deluded mooches.
Plus, this ignores the fact that freegans are performing incredibly low-value labour that benefits only themselves -- dumpster diving and scrounging -- rather than labour that might positively affect others -- like turning low-value resources like dirt, water, and air into high-value products like pot or bourbon that actually make other people happy.
So you, with absolutely no references and a head full of conspiracy theories, know better than NASA, the ESA, the NOAA, the WMO, and the EPA -- all of whom believe in the theory of anthropogenic ozone depletion caused by CFCs, and publish research that supports that theory?
Seriously, here in reality, science supports the theory of anthropenic ozone depletion. It supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It supports almost all the theories that scientists and environmentalists endorse, and that paranoid antigovernment sociopaths bitterly decry as attempts to destroy the US economy.
Those are some rather large claims. A few references would be nice, before people start calling you a conspiracy-theory nutjob. The ozone hole is very real. Global warming and the exponential rise in atmospheric CO_2 levels are both real as is the connection between atmospheric CO_2 levels and global mean temperature.
Some people note the existence of just one or two pseudoscientists that abuse a theory, and decide that the entire field is crap. Like the losers that criticize evolution and anthropology because of Piltdown man. But I guess you're skeptical there too... after all, biologists lied to us, right?
Well, if I and my homeless-insane clientele consider the aforementioned anthrax to be useful, wouldn't that make me productive? Anthrax is definitely useful for rendering large amounts of land uninhabitable for centuries at a time. I could also spend my time producing pet rocks, or something equally inane. The point is more that productivity is in the eye of the beholder. I would call alternative underground artists productive -- there are definitely lots of people who wouldn't. I would also call producing SUVs counterproductive, since any labour spent producing an SUV could have been better spent producing two conventional automobiles that cost less and are superior in every meaningful way.
This isn't entirely true. It's entirely possible to produce things that are negative. Consumption in some cases has no appreciably negative consequences of any kind, and can have enormous positive consequences (assuming we're talking about capitalism here).
Suppose I dedicate my time to producing large amounts of weaponized anthrax, and buying as few consumer goods as possible. My labour serves no purpose and no economic activity is created by me (other than whatever results from me selling weaponized anthrax to the homeless-insane). That would make me pretty much the worst person on Earth. Conversely, suppose you are on disability and spend whatever small amount of disposable income you have on, say, iPods. In that case, you're using up very few resources, and although you produce nothing, you're also not really costing anything other than the waste and complaining that results from redistributing wealth. If we give this hypothetical you even the most meagre, lazy, menial job, at which you hypothetically do very little work, you're now ahead of the curve. You're being mildly productive, creating wealth directly by your labour and indirectly by stimulating commerce for Apple (this hypothetical you is clumsy and breaks iPods quickly, and thus keeps Apple nicely busy). Hypothetical you, the lazy iPod-consuming guy, is way better than our hypothetical me, the ever-toiling breeder of anthrax who lives on pennies a day and buries his wealth in the backyard.
Blah blah blah. Anyway, I totally agree with you about the charities thing though. Best that a charity like the Gates Foundation do its thing and then pass away, making room for the ultra-philanthropists of the future. Otherwise it runs the risk of becoming nothing more than a financial sink-hole. There are enough pseudo-charity-money-pits out there already. I haven't decided about consumption-taxation yet... I think I'd need to actually study some macroeconomics before really forming a kick-ass, shouting-match-worthy, super elitist opinion on the subject. And really, if you can't be super elitist about something, what's the point?
a) Guns stores have guns by default, and aren't really a valid case.
b) Check out how many mall jewelry stores have a gun under the counter. Is it... zero? The mall has armed security guards (some malls, anyway), but that's not much different than any other kind of store hiring a security company -- which gas stations do. It's COMPLETELY different than keeping a gun in the store and expecting it to increase your safety rather than drastically reduce it. Reality intrudes here: having a gun in the store is a danger to yourself and everyone else present; having trained, armed professionals on call ready to arrive in under five minutes is just a minor variation on keeping the guns solely in the hands of the police.
But, if you're really interested, go ask around at the nearest mall. Find out if ANY stores have loaded firearms. Phone a few insurance companies, ask if they'll insure a store that keeps a gun on the premises. See if the cost of life insurance increases or decreases if you keep weapons in your home. Actuarial tables don't lie. I think property insurance rates actually do decrease if you have a gun and some training in how to use it; but that's rather different than saying that the gun protects you or your family.
Sorry, but guns are a liability. Period. You are free to take the risk yourself, just like you are free to assume the liabilities of drinking or enjoying some fine LSD or whatever else. Just don't lie to yourself about the risks. We do these things because we enjoy them, they make us happy. Guns are great for recreation (hunting, skeet shooting, biathalons, etc). Collecting them seems amuse some people. A false sense of security is certainly worth something -- why else would anyone buy an alarm system that they are -- with a statistical near-certainty -- incapable of using effectively? Why would people pay a premium for SUVs that are actually more dangerous to themselves (and ten to twenty times more dangerous to their fellow drivers)? Guns are no different. It's fine if that's your thing.
Oh, and even small gas stations typically have at least 500 packs of cigarettes out in the open that could be gathered up in under a minute. Even if you can only sell them for $1 apiece, that's $500. Add in the $100 or so in the till, and you have yourself a week's worth of crack money. Not bad at all. Not that most robbers have the sense to steal the cigarettes...
It depends entirely on what you are comparing those numbers to. If the figure in question increases by an average of 10% each year, 0.3% is most definitely NOT noise. Interpretation is the big thing here. How do these figures compare to the average rate of change of American driving?
Also, you don't really know how good their precision was. If they actually tracked 1000 people over the course of a year, and read off their odometers, their precision would be quite high. 1000 randomly selected subjects is a great sample size, and the data itself would have precision to within a single mile. It's unfortunate that they don't provide more of their data and calculations, but it is just a mass-media news blip. It's not as if they pretend that the article is in fact a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Being critical is great, but sense is required. Being that critical of a story in Reuters suggests that you are taking the story way too seriously to begin with. Save the calls for in-depth analysis for genuinely important sources of information, like scientific research or your shareholders' reports. Reuters is barely more than cheap entertainment.
Very true though -- it highlights precisely why the power of government is supposed to be limited. Whatever power you give to the leaders you favour, you're also giving to the leaders you oppose.
Slashdot Mirror
You lost your right to say that Americans are free when you didn't butcher Dubya and string up the supreme court for imposing their own opinions on a set of election results that were not even remotely clear, and refusing to even hear the appeals of the tens of thousands of disenfranchised voters that were barred from voting just for being poor and having names that were too similar to those of a convicted criminals in other states. That you don't lynch-mob government officials that engage in gerrymandering is proof enough that you don't even care if your elections are even remotely representative. Even allowing the existence of "lobbying" (AKA bribery) is an embarassment for any nation in which it occurs. America is not free, it is not democratic, and it is by far the stupidest nation in the Western Hemisphere. Consider this: it is the only non-Muslim nation where there are actually a sizable number of people that question the value of literacy... and are willing to elect leaders that lack it.
If the player does anything whatsoever to evade any kind of copy protection (including techniques as feeble as region coding), then it is illegal in the US courtesy of Bill Clinton's masterpiece -- the DMCA. So the US doesn't HAVE to ban Chinese players that work around region coding: they are already covered by existing legislation.
But if you're not sure, look at what happens to US stores that try to sell DVD players and gaming systems with non-US region codes. They get DMCA complaints filed against them -- they are circumventing a copy protection scheme, and the DMCA forbids that.
I hate to burst your bubble, but that really is how US is going. Too many Americans are too stupid to vote sanely, and so they end up with jackasses like that don't even read the legislation that they vote for. The PATRIOT act? The DMCA? Copyright term extension after copyright term extension? Pretending that Cuba is an enemy while still operating a military base there? Pulling out of Afghanistan and letting Bin Laden go free, just so that there would be troops available to be killed in Iraq for no reason? What kind of president pardons 140 people in one day? -- with that many, it's completely impossible that he put any thought into them. "Read my lips -- no new taxes", just two years before raising taxes. Lieing under oath before the supreme court? Selecting Dan Quayle as a running mate should be an automatic disqualification for holding office. Voting for a senile actor with an economic policy that whose plausibility is equated with magic? And let's not forget the man that oversaw the almost complete destabilization of the middle east and used taxpayer money to train fundamentalist terrorists in ... guess where -- Afghanistan (and Pakistan).
American politics are easily the world's stupidest. I suppose that's a good thing in some ways, since it frees up all the sane, competent Americans to do real work like designing buildings, inventing new caffeinated treats, and finding news parts of the pizza in which to hide cheese. Still, you'd think that the American public would have at least marginally higher expections of their leaders.
Hey, the CD Tax is basically just a national subscription to a music download service called "The Internet". We pay a small fee on our media and get to download as much music as we like to fill that media up.
Well, not really. But for all intents and purposes, that's how the levy plays out. It's just a shame that the levy monies don't actually go to artists, but rather to the CRIA or whatever the hell they're calling themselves these days.
I'd guess that Canada may just be lucky in that any money that a corporation might spend to manipulate a government will invariably be spent on the American government, rather than Canada's. As a result, the US tends to get stuck with the very worst in government toadying towards business special interests (at least the worst as far as Democracies go -- see "Fascism" for further information on just how ridiculous business manipulation of politics can get). The governments in America's immediate shadow are left in a position to be much more sane about whether they bust up a monopoly or just keep a watchful eye on it to keep it honest. That, of course, is always the peril of being the biggest show in town; you attract all of the negative attention.
American is Internet Explorer -- a big moderately functional package that attracts all of the attention of those with a mind to find exploits in the system. Canada and Mexico get to slink by as Mozilla and Opera (decide for yourself which is which) -- the holes might be there, but no one is looking for them because all eyes are on the big dog. So they come off looking relatively good, if a tad obscure and unpopular.
The American people have all the say they need. They CAN have things differently -- all they have to do is:
... whatever organ is responsible for being that goddam fucking stupid. Possibly the anus, but I hesitate to ascribe such odious qualities to such a useful bodypart.
a) Not vote Democrat. If possible, have your local Democratic candidate stuffed into a small box labelled "AIDS Queer" and shipped to Texas for a ceremonial shit-kicking.
b) Not vote Republican. If possible, have your local Republican candidate locked in a cage and forced to Go-Go dance for the homeless insane at a drug-rave to an all Marilyn Manson club mix.
c) Not vote for any politician that breaks their election promises. If possible, sue them for false advertising. Multiply this by the number of voters in the constituency, do it in small claims court, and then laugh as he/she spends the next twenty years in court, paying out $1000/lawsuit for defrauding the voters.
d) Not vote for any politician who violates the constitution in any way whatsoever. If possible, have such politicians hung as traitors. It's only fair.
e) Not vote for any politician that is illiterate or can't speak basic English properly. Flubbing a time honoured adage and replacing half of it with a line from a song by The Who qualifies as not being capable of speaking English properly.
g) Not vote for anyone that uses religion, blind patriotism, troop-support, family values, or any other form of imaginary bullshit to win votes. Everyone wants families to thrive, for the troops to not die, and for churches to not be burnt down. Anyone using those things to win votes us just trying to distract you from the fact that they're a complete fuckup, and could very well be sufficiently incompetent to cause families to starve, the troops to die in pointless wars, and for churches to be burnt down by the ATF.
h) If you were too goddam fucking stupid to follow any of the aforementioned rules, then you have CHOSEN the current state of affairs. This makes you a fuckup of the highest calibre. Fortunately, firearms are still legal in most of the US; purchase one and use it to permanently remove yourself from the electorate / genepool.
See? It's easy. Americans totally have it within themselves to improve things. It's just that most Americans are collosal retards, and don't feel obliged to vote with their brain rather than
Politicians only listen to businesses because voters LET them. If you just didn't vote for politicians that took bribes (AKA: campaign contributions and lobbying), there would be no problem. Almost every other democratic nation on Earth has had the sense to engage in serious campaign reform for precisely this reason. You have to wonder about a people that are so goddam fucking stupid that they see absolutely nothing wrong with their politicians setting up an entire network of systematic bribery, working against the people, and being complete sleazebags out to rob the public coffers for every last penny.
It's probably better that they DO start hyping these things prematurely to drum up capital -- how else do you expect them to fully develop their research? There are limits to public funding, particularly in this age when everyone suddenly seems to be very grumpy about any form of taxation that isn't used for killing foreigners and encouraging their families and friends to become terrorists. In any case, venture capital isn't for ideas that are totally fleshed out and ready to be marketed. It's for ideas that are still in the experimental phase.
I think you're confusing free markets with capitalism. Capitalism is all about monopolies, corruption, and destroying the competition. The entire idea is to take everything you can at any cost. Free markets are a different beast, and are a bit closer to what western nations (and even supposedly "communist" nations, these days) strive for. Capitalism is what we used to do back in the days of wondrous events like potato famines and great depressions.
Going to mexico to buy things that are banned in America? Isn't that evidence that things are fucked? And it's not just cigars; we also import resources (nickel and cobalt, apparently) from Cuba, we can travel there on vacation (which a remarkable number of people I know have done), etc. We actually TRADE with Cuba, in a serious sense. America, meanwhile, posts security guards in the American zones of airports to make sure that Americans aren't trying to board flights to Cuba from other countries. Nice control-freak government you've got there. You should be proud that your ancestors died so that your government can decide where you go on vacation. I'm sure they would think that taking a British cannon round to the face was totally worthwhile to guarantee that their descendants would someday be sent to jail for duplicating a DVD (despite it being explicitly permitted in the constitution) or sharing (which the bible explicitly encourages, if you happen to think that the bible warrants anything other than scornful curiosity) artistic works.
There's a list as long as your arm of tariffs imposed by the US to protect American workers from having to actually compete with the rest of the world. A remarkable number of products can't be exported at all, or only to a handful of friendly nations. Many types of software are completely banned in the US (it's interesting how most Linux distros have a "non-US" repository for software that Americans believe will destroy their economy and completely unhinge people's morality).
Canada has some serious issues regarding free markets; but we're nowhere near as schizoid about it as Americans. At the very least we don't run around screaming about the evils of communism, trumpeting ourselves as the saviours of capitalism, and then prohibit people from engaging in basic reasonable forms of trade. The fact that America violates the free trade agreements that the US itself agitated for ... pretty much says it all.
That's one of the nice things about Canada -- we can freely buy a lot of the things that Americans can't due to retarded embargoes. We have cuban cigars at the store where I work. They're expensive, since they have to be flown in, but we have them.
You know, for a country that spends so much time braying about its love of capitalism, Americans sure do their best to prevent any capitalism from happening. Cubans want to buy and sell their products in American markts? Sorry, no can do. Foreigners want to buy computer chips? Obviously they all just want to make nukes (forget for a moment that the computations are the easiest part of the entire processs, with or without computers...). China makes quality video players that aren't deliberately crippled? That's GOT to be banned -- using a product that you paid money for is supposed to unpleasant. Now China wants to make a quality video player that has even stronger DRM than domestic video players, and isn't encumbered by patent royalties; that's somehow evil as well. Seriously, who are the REAL communists here?
It's sad that "socialist", "liberal" Canada embraces capitalism and free trade so much more fully than Americans, who've been duped into thinking that a "free market" means that you get to choose which state-mandated church you attend while the government works overtime to inhibit competition and international trade.
Really? Because I thought that was exactly what James Kopp did.
For perspective on the "ethics" of "Christians":
Let's be honest now -- there are plenty of Christians that sit around planning ways to kill the nonbelievers. Just like there are Muslims that sit around thinking of ways to kill heretics, just like there are communist radicals and anarcho-syndicalists that plan murders of democratic leaders, etc. Humans are violent monsters, and ideologies make them even more monstrous than usual. Christians are no better than other group of murderous thugs on this planet. And if you don't believe me, visit an abortion clinic sometime and check out how serious the security is. That's the kind of climate of fear that Christian terrorists create.
Still not convinced? A wonder group of faithful men and women. These guys are just great, huh? Are you sure that Christians are never violent and don't use violence as a means of political and social change? If you think I'm blowing what they do out of proportion, just check out the Army of God website. They make absolutely no bones about it: they support and encourage the murder of doctors. Or David Lewis Rice, who murdered an attorney for (as he saw it) spreading atheism. The list goes on and on.
People who are even remotely clued in to what's going on in American politics (by which I mean people who aren't stupid enough to have sworn their loyalty to either of the bands of crooks) can't help but admire what they're doing. And Slashdot has an unusually high concentration of people with the insight to see how big media is destroying whatever was positive about Democracy -- people who get that CNN and Fox News are handing America over to Fascism as surely as if they'd put the Blackshirts into power personally.
Is it really any wonder that almost everyone here loves Colbert and what he's doing?
Okay, here in the real world, terrorism is such a paltry weak threat as to be laughable. More people die because they can't afford healthcare each year than were killed in the 9/11 attack. You want security and safety? You could get a national healthcare system for half the price of the Iraq war and make Americans vastly safer.
Alternatively, you could grow some balls, stop crying like a pathetic baby, and realize that you live in one of the safest nations on Earth, despite Bush's best attempts to rile up terrorists against you and the DHS's insistence on spending all of its time harassing small businesses and American patriots that happen to be slightly too brown for their own good.
And before you criticize people for not tolerating different opinions, consider for a moment that you are posting about how much you hate Colbert, Stewart, all liberals, not to mention anyone who isn't terrified every single moment of every single day, anyone who still manages to laugh at the fact that politicians are invariably drawn from amongst the very shittiest human beings on the entire planet. It's not like they're giving away national secrets -- they're laughing at the fact you're so fucking stupid that you voted for a man who can't read above the 2nd grade level and is so goddam retarded that he doesn't know how that expression about being fooled twice goes.
The whole world is laughing at America, at its stupidity, at its abject cowardice, at its irrationality. Colbert and Stewart are trying to help you see the joke so that you can do better next time.
This really underscores the problems with one government supporting another. It makes the recipient beholden to the donator. It can work reasonably well when the nations in question are peers (or a reasonable proximity thereof), like American financial support and commonwealth material support of Britain during WW2. But when the nations have a major power inbalance between them? The results are usually destructive. American and Soviet influence over small nations during the cold war typify this.
It's one thing to help the people of another nation, by financing the construction of hospitals and schools and that kind of thing. But giving money to the government just buys influence over that government. It's great the Hamas can't be as belligerent and stupid as they would like ... but without the opportunity to make their own mistakes and get beaten down for them, wont Palestinians just keep blaming America for their troubles? It's kind of scary that the majority of the Palestinian government's employees were being bankrolled by America and the EU in the first place. That is NOT a reasonable way to run a nation.
If America and the EU want to help, they should do what America did in the past to spread democracy -- set up a trade structure where the people of the recipient nation get tons and tons of cheap American-made crap. It's hard to hate the people that manufactured your espresso machine or underwear. Voting only takes place two or three times a decade. Church/Synagogue/Mosque is once a week. Coffee is two or three times a DAY. MP3 players can offer DOZENS of hours of entertainment a week. A microwave can easily save you an hour of labour each day. A comfortable pair of shoes can make you feel better with every single footstep for an entire year or more -- no political movement in history can offer that kind of comfort. Would you rather spend four hours playing a videogame, or four hours getting brainwashed to hate people that you've never met? There's a reason that consumeristic nations don't have many civil wars, genocidal militias, or tribal warlords ...
Consumerism has its own negative consequences, but it's done more for world peace than any other factor in all of history. Why should I die in a pointless war of conquest, when there are so many things that I don't own yet? I'll kill defend my nation -- after all, that's where all my stuff is. I'll try to keep our army here; sending them out to wage war costs money that I'd rather spend on videogames. Etc.
I know that many universities place their Computer Science departments within the faculty of Math. Computer science isn't quite the same thing as programming or software engineering, but it definitely illustrates the point.
Regarding the question of software development at least, I'd say the problem is that people trying to make software are dealing with three completely distinct problems at once:
Ultimately, what you end up with is that writing a good piece of software is an engineering task like building a bridge, except that structural engineer has the luxury of hiring comparitively cheap and uniformly skilled construction workers. The software engineer has to hire creative, mathematically-proficient, technically skilled people with a skillset that changes monthly and varies wildly from person to person. And who ideally understand enough of the engineering to deal with all of the planning and verification thingies that need to be done.
That's my perspective anyway, from my brief time in the industry...
True enough. Even the definition of integers is pretty abstract. 3 is defined as {{{{}}, {}}, {{}}, {}} under the set-theory definition, which I believe is the standard one these days. The definition of irrational numbers using Dedekind cuts is even more abstract. It's hard to ascribe anything even remotely resembling concrete reality to these things.
Well, he didn't necessarily claim that his "1/0=infinity" rules are conventional algebraic rules -- you're implicitely assuming that multiplication of his "infinity" symbol is commutative or associative.
(infinity) = 1 / 0
0 * (infinity) = 0 * 1 / 0
Notice how you have to apply the commutative law to the RHDS to cancel the 0?
(infinity) = 1 / 0
(infinity) * 0 = (1 / 0) * 0
Now you have to apply to associative law to the RHS if you want to cancel the 0. If Bertrand Russel taught us anything, it's that you can't assume these things when dealing with infinity. You can't even make blind assumptions with 0; the classic 1=2 pseudoproof demonstrates how easy it is to fuck up when performing normal algebraic operations if you don't watch out for 0.
I'm not supporting this idea, since I don't have much use for (infinity) = 1/0 -- since it treats infinity too much like an actual number (like, would 7/0 equal 7infinity? No thank you). But you can't play willy nilly with infinity in quite the way that is being described.
... you say that like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with restructuring math? As you say, it's been done many times, and some of those times it has been restructured to positive effect. Designing a new system is great, if it's a good system. Furthermore (and this is my favourite line, since it makes no sense at all) "inventing his own false reality"?! Mathematics is not reality in any sense, false or otherwise. Mathematics is just dumb little symbols on paper that can be replaced by other dumb little symbols according to ridiculous rules. This is no different than adding i or omega or negatives or the aleph numbers or defining hyperbolic geometries or any other new mathematical idea. It could be much less useful than those ideas (and it probably is, since it depends on 1/0 being infinity and -1/0 being negative infinity, which isn't very practical), but it's no more true or false than they are since mathematics is totally imaginary to begin with.
ALL Mathematics is COMPLETELY synthetic. That's the whole point -- that's the power of mathematics. You can define any set of rules, any set of axioms, any set of symbols, and start deducing. If the tools you need don't exist, you make them up. Nothing is more valuable in mathematics than a nice, clean, clear definition that increases the expressivity of math. Since math has no independent existence anyway, you can get away with pretty much anything so long as your new system has useful properties. Mathematicians with the guts to make things up as they go along end up with their names in textbooks and attached to great theorems, assuming what they made is conceptually useful (whether nullity is conceptually useful remains to be seen; a written description of the definitions would be nice).
Mathematicians that only do calculations that we already know about and are comfortable with? They're called accountants, and they have no friends. Seriously though -- since when did making up new ideas become a bad thing? I was under the (apparently mistaken) view that creativity was a praiseworthy trait.
That is possibly the most insane thing I've ever seen. These basically are shifting from having a mutalistic relationship with the capitalist economy (benefitting from what it produces and contributing their own labour to it) to a comensalistic relationship with it (benefitting from what it produces but contributing nothing). So the like capitalism enough to consume its products, but not to actually contribute. Subsistence farmers at least have a vague claim to standing outside of capitalism. Freegans are just deluded mooches.
Plus, this ignores the fact that freegans are performing incredibly low-value labour that benefits only themselves -- dumpster diving and scrounging -- rather than labour that might positively affect others -- like turning low-value resources like dirt, water, and air into high-value products like pot or bourbon that actually make other people happy.
So you, with absolutely no references and a head full of conspiracy theories, know better than NASA, the ESA, the NOAA, the WMO, and the EPA -- all of whom believe in the theory of anthropogenic ozone depletion caused by CFCs, and publish research that supports that theory?
Seriously, here in reality, science supports the theory of anthropenic ozone depletion. It supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It supports almost all the theories that scientists and environmentalists endorse, and that paranoid antigovernment sociopaths bitterly decry as attempts to destroy the US economy.
The ESA's research has found ozone-depleting clouds containing CFC-derived radicals. But Europeans are automatically wrong since they try not to fight unwinnable $500 billion dollar wars of attrition in the middle east anymore, right?
The NOAA is pretty sure that ozone depletion is caused by Humans. Are your tax dollars being used as part of a grand conspiracy to destroy America? Better start writing more threatening letters to the government.
NASA's ozone depletion FAQ. But everyone knows that NASA is a liberal conspiracy developed by socialists to undermine industrialism in all its forms.
To summarize: don't be such a fucking idiot. Anthropogenic ozone depletion is completely real.
Some people note the existence of just one or two pseudoscientists that abuse a theory, and decide that the entire field is crap. Like the losers that criticize evolution and anthropology because of Piltdown man. But I guess you're skeptical there too ... after all, biologists lied to us, right?
Well, if I and my homeless-insane clientele consider the aforementioned anthrax to be useful, wouldn't that make me productive? Anthrax is definitely useful for rendering large amounts of land uninhabitable for centuries at a time. I could also spend my time producing pet rocks, or something equally inane. The point is more that productivity is in the eye of the beholder. I would call alternative underground artists productive -- there are definitely lots of people who wouldn't. I would also call producing SUVs counterproductive, since any labour spent producing an SUV could have been better spent producing two conventional automobiles that cost less and are superior in every meaningful way.
This isn't entirely true. It's entirely possible to produce things that are negative. Consumption in some cases has no appreciably negative consequences of any kind, and can have enormous positive consequences (assuming we're talking about capitalism here).
Suppose I dedicate my time to producing large amounts of weaponized anthrax, and buying as few consumer goods as possible. My labour serves no purpose and no economic activity is created by me (other than whatever results from me selling weaponized anthrax to the homeless-insane). That would make me pretty much the worst person on Earth. Conversely, suppose you are on disability and spend whatever small amount of disposable income you have on, say, iPods. In that case, you're using up very few resources, and although you produce nothing, you're also not really costing anything other than the waste and complaining that results from redistributing wealth. If we give this hypothetical you even the most meagre, lazy, menial job, at which you hypothetically do very little work, you're now ahead of the curve. You're being mildly productive, creating wealth directly by your labour and indirectly by stimulating commerce for Apple (this hypothetical you is clumsy and breaks iPods quickly, and thus keeps Apple nicely busy). Hypothetical you, the lazy iPod-consuming guy, is way better than our hypothetical me, the ever-toiling breeder of anthrax who lives on pennies a day and buries his wealth in the backyard.
Blah blah blah. Anyway, I totally agree with you about the charities thing though. Best that a charity like the Gates Foundation do its thing and then pass away, making room for the ultra-philanthropists of the future. Otherwise it runs the risk of becoming nothing more than a financial sink-hole. There are enough pseudo-charity-money-pits out there already. I haven't decided about consumption-taxation yet ... I think I'd need to actually study some macroeconomics before really forming a kick-ass, shouting-match-worthy, super elitist opinion on the subject. And really, if you can't be super elitist about something, what's the point?
a) Guns stores have guns by default, and aren't really a valid case.
b) Check out how many mall jewelry stores have a gun under the counter. Is it ... zero? The mall has armed security guards (some malls, anyway), but that's not much different than any other kind of store hiring a security company -- which gas stations do. It's COMPLETELY different than keeping a gun in the store and expecting it to increase your safety rather than drastically reduce it. Reality intrudes here: having a gun in the store is a danger to yourself and everyone else present; having trained, armed professionals on call ready to arrive in under five minutes is just a minor variation on keeping the guns solely in the hands of the police.
But, if you're really interested, go ask around at the nearest mall. Find out if ANY stores have loaded firearms. Phone a few insurance companies, ask if they'll insure a store that keeps a gun on the premises. See if the cost of life insurance increases or decreases if you keep weapons in your home. Actuarial tables don't lie. I think property insurance rates actually do decrease if you have a gun and some training in how to use it; but that's rather different than saying that the gun protects you or your family.
Sorry, but guns are a liability. Period. You are free to take the risk yourself, just like you are free to assume the liabilities of drinking or enjoying some fine LSD or whatever else. Just don't lie to yourself about the risks. We do these things because we enjoy them, they make us happy. Guns are great for recreation (hunting, skeet shooting, biathalons, etc). Collecting them seems amuse some people. A false sense of security is certainly worth something -- why else would anyone buy an alarm system that they are -- with a statistical near-certainty -- incapable of using effectively? Why would people pay a premium for SUVs that are actually more dangerous to themselves (and ten to twenty times more dangerous to their fellow drivers)? Guns are no different. It's fine if that's your thing.
Oh, and even small gas stations typically have at least 500 packs of cigarettes out in the open that could be gathered up in under a minute. Even if you can only sell them for $1 apiece, that's $500. Add in the $100 or so in the till, and you have yourself a week's worth of crack money. Not bad at all. Not that most robbers have the sense to steal the cigarettes...
Also, you don't really know how good their precision was. If they actually tracked 1000 people over the course of a year, and read off their odometers, their precision would be quite high. 1000 randomly selected subjects is a great sample size, and the data itself would have precision to within a single mile. It's unfortunate that they don't provide more of their data and calculations, but it is just a mass-media news blip. It's not as if they pretend that the article is in fact a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Being critical is great, but sense is required. Being that critical of a story in Reuters suggests that you are taking the story way too seriously to begin with. Save the calls for in-depth analysis for genuinely important sources of information, like scientific research or your shareholders' reports. Reuters is barely more than cheap entertainment.
Very true though -- it highlights precisely why the power of government is supposed to be limited. Whatever power you give to the leaders you favour, you're also giving to the leaders you oppose.