Do I think that it's better to have a chance at a free life than to not have one? Yes.
Do I think that it is preferable to not have to deal with war in close proximity to one's daily life? Again, yes, unless it's not really preferable.
I'll tell you this. Prior to the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, back when the main newsworthy sign of something being seriously wrong in Iraq was its outward aggression towards Kuwait, things there were worse than they are today.
I visited Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia for a few months in winter 1990 to spring 1991 courtesy of Uncle Sam, and saw enough then to be certain that life without Saddam would have been the best outcome for the people that I met there. When the people you're supposed to be fighting throw down their arms, and are glad to see you because they know you'll give them clothes, food, and cigarettes, you begin to get the idea that perhaps totalitarian dictatorship is a pretty big negative (the Kuwaitis were less happy to see us than the Iraqi soldiers were).
None of that speaks to war and its necessity, per-se, but it leads me to this observation; you believe that the temporary situation in which they now live, where bombings are part of daily life, is the worst possible thing that could happen, and I do not.
I'm almost 100% certain that Obama's war machine has destroyed far more innocent life than it has helped.
Seems pointless to discuss it, given your stated level of certainty, but *why* are you so certain? What fact, observation, or insight brings you to that conclusion? Your definition of "better off" seems to be solely monetary, but that's a quaint distinction best used by people who live in places where you are not likely to get shot, gassed, or imprisoned for having a loudly voiced opinion.
Wasn't talking about squashing dissidents, and you're right about the greatest decrease in death and chaos being to kill everybody...however, I'm not talking about an absolute change, I'm talking about a relative one (one situation: war, bringing about a more peaceful world than its absence).
Tyranny implies using violence solely to exert control, and that is not, and will not ever be, part of the argument I just made.
The U.S. Civil War and one or two world wars are examples in which death and chaos were diminished by war itself.
I'm not sure I agree. Peace is the opposite of death and chaos, but that death and chaos can occur without an official "war" being waged. For that matter, sometimes, official "war" is what ends the death and chaos.
I can't argue with your analysis of the President's promises vs. actions (though I doubt we agree on what was a failure and why), but I think you *can* give someone the peace prize who conducts war, if the reason and end result is a decrease in that same death and chaos for innocent people.
...It can also be argued that Nobel peace prize has nothing to do with that. Did opposing your country's leader make the world a more peaceful place? Does escalating a local conflict and doing the dirty job for the US government make the world a more peceful place?...
Exactly my point. There's certainly room for discussion on whether or not any of those things made the world a more peaceful place, and among the various award winners, there is not always agreement on appropriateness. Wikileaks is the example we are talking about, in this case.
You said that controversy about a nobel prize nominee in a country says more about that country. Does a lack of controversy say nothing? Seems to me that both situations say something.
...and the wisdom of the crowd is always right, then? I'm going to go re-read 1984 with that in mind.
The reason Wikileaks generates controversy in the US is that there is diversity of opinion here. We aren't all of one mind on a huge number of issues.
I personally think that what Assange did is fine (he's a civilian), and the soldier who broke just about every opsec-related rule there is should be court-martialed, but that's not the topic.
The question of whether Wikileaks deserves a nomination focuses narrowly on individual observations of how exactly Wikileaks has contributed to peace on our planet. I think it's very much an open argument as to whether the information they have released has made the world more or less peaceful. That determination is completely separate from whether or not Wikileaks is a good thing, which I believe it is, on the whole.
Here, now you can read past the first sentence and properly respond to the OP:
The 2009 prize was given to a man (Obama) as a tool to promote peace, and not because of past contributions of the recipient toward peace. The world was tired of the Bush administration and their pro-war foreign policy, and the committee was banking on Obama making a change by giving him a major incentive to do so. Now it has become even more of a political tool with the nomination of Wikileaks. I cannot see how people can remain objective when it comes to considering Wikileaks as a candidate for the peace prize given the political controversy surrounding it.
...just that you have to go through life deferring to experts... the CORRECT experts....
Fair enough. I'm interested in seeing who wins the bet, but not sure who that will be. I recall a fair bit of conversation by the same pool of experts over global cooling back in the 70's. I know that the correct term is now climate change, and not global warming, but that seems a bit tongue-in-cheek...if we can't even define the *nature* of the problem, then why are we talking about plans of action?
It's not even that I'm skeptical, it's just that with all of the recent statistical model shenanigans in various scientific fields (some of which are a bit more solid than climatology), I don't know whether the experts know how to test their hypotheses, or whether they'll be using the same model when measuring in the future that they are using to make predictions today.
I find it very frustrating that so much of climatology is based on data that gets continually reworked and argued about.
The person making the prediction (being asked the question) in this case may not be a client scientist, but he has a track record of accurately describing temperature in the future.
You might not ask your cardiologist to change the oil in your car, but that's kind of the reverse example. Would you ask a physicist to design an overpass?
PJ has always struck me as being disingenous at best. She seems to have lost all perspective. The mission statement includes all these lofty goals and statements about legal research, being a resource, etc., etc. But if you read her own interview on how it started, she states right at the beginning that she used to hand out Knoppix CDs to Microsoft users, started Groklaw so she could learn how to blog, and then along came SCO and "it made me so angry". But she always wants to appear disengaged and "legal" and able to see both sides. What a load of self-serving rubbish.
*sigh*
If she has always struck you at being disingenuous at best (really, at *best*?), then of course it would appear to you that she's lost all perspective.
As someone who earns a living writing code on Microsoft's application stack, I'm not your total idealist when it comes to open source or free software. I do understand that there are reasons that people choose to use proprietary stuff. That said, I have a personal understanding of why free software is important, and why software patents are bad, period, that's not far removed from hers.
You're saying that because she thinks free software is better than proprietary software for her stated reasons, then she's not worth listening to. If that means that you think that the legal research she has done is not fairly representing the issues at hand, then I'd ask you to point out where we can see some evidence of that. SCO making someone angry is grounds for whatever they do afterwards to be self-serving rubbish?
That's an *awful* lot of protest over a person expressing disappointment...
I get what you're going for, it just doesn't sound likely...or impartial, for that matter.
I think of this as more of an "unintended consequences" scenario.
Yes, it's obvious that drilling in deep water is risky, but when there is a general refusal to allow drilling on land or near shore (at least in places known to have significant oil deposits), then where else can you drill? Allowing zero permits isn't really an option yet, since nearly all transportation uses refined oil as a power source.
To me, this seems like a case where environmental protection got very much in its own way without intending to. It certainly would have been easier to both stop a leak and to clean up after it for a similar accident that occurred on land or in 100 feet of water.
Along those lines, my favorite sentence was this one:
...Bleary-eyed I didnt[sic] notice it was copy written and reordered some of it...
The lack of understanding there is mind boggling. It's not surprising that she's non-apologetic if she doesn't understand the fundamental gap in comprehending copyright evinced by that statement.
Your implication is that individuals are better at managing power than collections of individuals. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.
it works that way. it is the idea behind the basis of democracy. the opposite is elitism, or aristocracy or oligarchy in various forms.
If you mean that collective will is the idea behind democracy, then you just made a mistake in saying "it works that way". I said collections of individuals are better at managing power than individuals. You said that the *opposite* of collective management is elitism, aristocracy, oligarchy. Difficult to understand which way you're attempting to disagree.
Companies succeed by out-competing other companies on a variety of levels. Completely distributed ownership destroys the incentive that success provides.
this is a misstatement. there are numerous forms of distributed collective ownership constructs in society, from cooperatives to open source projects, and they succeed. sometimes even more than the other types.
That's not a misstatement, as we're talking about two different things. You're discussing the ability of projects to be self-sustaining, and I'm talking about the ability of business to grow.
In both of your examples, you are not talking about a closed ecosystem. In both examples, there is a reliance on outside investment in order to spur growth. If there is no "outside" (i.e. all companies are collectives, and all are equally owned by all people), then there is no place for further investment to come from, and no growth path.
...you will have accomplished the financial goal that this society can provide. this, will give you sense of accomplishment. since you will be secure financially, you wont have worries of fighting over your survival. with that, you will be able to actually work on providing your unique contribution to the society, whatever it is, genuinely and passionately. you will also have the financial power to do it.
the above will spur boundless creativity and innovation civilization-wide, because it will happen for everyone...
That (and the rest that's unquoted) sounds wonderful, but it doesn't work that way (this is not a case of me being "pretty sure"...I'm sure). The idea that all of mankind will be content with some status quo...that no man or woman will ever feel a sense of ambition...is without merit. That's the fly in the ointment of what,logically speaking, is an otherwise fine argument for socialism.
Human beings compete. They strive. They desire and yearn and want and hope and try. For you, it may not be monetary...you may gain satisfaction in performing a task well enough to gain accolades. Not everyone is so pure of thought, and going through this discussion from a position of assuming that people have no desire does not serve you well.
...internet was the wild west of the new era. it has been exploited, and hierarchy has been established. now there wont be any more googles. its no different than 19th century wild west...
I did, in fact read the thread, and am in the process of voicing my disagreement. You believe that the internet was once a wild west, but is now well established. I believe that to be untrue. Look to Facebook and Google's *current* tete-a-tete as an anecdotal example. That, however is not the wider point.
There is always a new frontier...a new paradigm...a new hot place to be, whether that's in technology, business, art, or whatever. In that place, there are many players. Some succeed, and some do not. For every Andy Warhol, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet, there are countless millions who were less successful, and billions who did not have the temerity to even try to be. It has happened countless times before, and will happen countless times again. The old ceases t
Your implication is that individuals are better at managing power than collections of individuals.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. It's a delicate balance. On one hand, you have pure democracy (which you propose), in which case, a majority of one decides the issue, regardless of the opinion of the just-barely-a-minority. Companies succeed by out-competing other companies on a variety of levels. Completely distributed ownership destroys the incentive that success provides.
If I own shares in every cookie company, and so does everyone else, then the idea of ownership becomes meaningless. What does my ownership get me? What good does my investment do for me or anyone else? How does that ownership and investment help those companies to succeed?
There are a variety of things that one could argue don't work in free markets, but what *does* work about [regulated] free markets is that new players have ample opportunity to supplant existing ones. 20 years ago, Google was in its infancy, and Yahoo was a far more influential company. Today, yahoo is all but gone, and Google stands toe-to-toe with any other tech company out there.
In another 20 years, we'll be having this same conversation about some as-yet-unknown tech startup doing the same thing.
Limiting company size or enforcing distributed ownership would definitely put the brakes on growth, but that's not the point, is it? The point is that we shouldn't allow a confusion between economic success (of an individual or company) and political power. The boundary has little to do with the size of the company, and much to do with the influence they are allowed to exert on our elected representatives. In that regard, those representatives are just as culpable as any shrewd corporate type.
I didn't say anything about knowing it's shot at you...
If an non-US sub is 30 miles off the coast of California, opens tubes and *prepares* to launch something, that's enough. You can't just wait to see which way the projectile is headed after they shoot it, you prevent the shot from ever being taken. That was part of my point.
If they lobbed an ICBM from NK *to* the US, we'd be firing something back in quick order. In terms of demonstrating the same capability without garnering that level of response, sneaking a sub to *our* coast and sending a missile all the way back to NK makes a pretty obvious point...I'm interested in hearing what the thing's destination was (a detail that has been absent from reports I've read so far).
China can launch spaceships into orbit; they have nothing to prove. North Korea wants people to pay attention to them, and has been less able to get people to pay attention than they would like.
As many have already said, if this was a US military launch, it would either have been done somewhere that people wouldn't have seen it, or there would have been an announcement and official press coverage (whether it was real coverage or smokescreen). It's not like it's a big secret from the public in the US that we have missiles and can launch them from subs, so it makes no sense to deny that we launched one in full view of millions of people.
...up until the point that they open weapons tubes and make it clear that they're preparing to shoot something, yes. Even in international waters, that kind of act of aggression would necessitate a pretty immediate response.
...actually, the parent was blathering about "it's a tax deduction" because the grandparent made it seem as if the contribution was pure altruism and had no other effect or incentive or or for the company. My comment was about goodwill not necessarily being the prime motivator.
Actually, all of the responses I saw said the same thing "OOH! This guy thinks they get all of that money as a deduction! I'm going to correct him!". I get your point, please try to understand mine.
Flamebait is for people who make controversial statements without the motive behind what would otherwise be a Troll. You're correct, the distinction is a minor one, and motive is key, I suppose.
One example of a troll would be a GNAA post. A vaguely corresponding flamebait post (race being a factor) would be something about Bill Cosby having it right when he said that black Americans need to take more responsibility. It's a fine line, and different people see the line in different places.
Slashdot Mirror
You're asking two questions at the same time.
Do I think that it's better to have a chance at a free life than to not have one? Yes.
Do I think that it is preferable to not have to deal with war in close proximity to one's daily life? Again, yes, unless it's not really preferable.
I'll tell you this. Prior to the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, back when the main newsworthy sign of something being seriously wrong in Iraq was its outward aggression towards Kuwait, things there were worse than they are today.
I visited Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia for a few months in winter 1990 to spring 1991 courtesy of Uncle Sam, and saw enough then to be certain that life without Saddam would have been the best outcome for the people that I met there. When the people you're supposed to be fighting throw down their arms, and are glad to see you because they know you'll give them clothes, food, and cigarettes, you begin to get the idea that perhaps totalitarian dictatorship is a pretty big negative (the Kuwaitis were less happy to see us than the Iraqi soldiers were).
None of that speaks to war and its necessity, per-se, but it leads me to this observation; you believe that the temporary situation in which they now live, where bombings are part of daily life, is the worst possible thing that could happen, and I do not.
I doubt we'll ever agree on that point.
Yep. I did indeed mean violent death. And furthermore, violent death at the hands of another human who intentionally killed you.
Seemed a bit wordy, though, and I hope others had the same insight as you as to my full meaning there.
Seems pointless to discuss it, given your stated level of certainty, but *why* are you so certain? What fact, observation, or insight brings you to that conclusion? Your definition of "better off" seems to be solely monetary, but that's a quaint distinction best used by people who live in places where you are not likely to get shot, gassed, or imprisoned for having a loudly voiced opinion.
Re-read my post. I didn't say that. I said that you can be sane and consider awarding a peace prize to someone who starts a war
Wasn't talking about squashing dissidents, and you're right about the greatest decrease in death and chaos being to kill everybody...however, I'm not talking about an absolute change, I'm talking about a relative one (one situation: war, bringing about a more peaceful world than its absence).
Tyranny implies using violence solely to exert control, and that is not, and will not ever be, part of the argument I just made.
The U.S. Civil War and one or two world wars are examples in which death and chaos were diminished by war itself.
I'm not sure I agree. Peace is the opposite of death and chaos, but that death and chaos can occur without an official "war" being waged. For that matter, sometimes, official "war" is what ends the death and chaos.
I can't argue with your analysis of the President's promises vs. actions (though I doubt we agree on what was a failure and why), but I think you *can* give someone the peace prize who conducts war, if the reason and end result is a decrease in that same death and chaos for innocent people.
Exactly my point. There's certainly room for discussion on whether or not any of those things made the world a more peaceful place, and among the various award winners, there is not always agreement on appropriateness. Wikileaks is the example we are talking about, in this case.
You said that controversy about a nobel prize nominee in a country says more about that country. Does a lack of controversy say nothing? Seems to me that both situations say something.
What's the point you're trying to make, here?
...and the wisdom of the crowd is always right, then? I'm going to go re-read 1984 with that in mind.
The reason Wikileaks generates controversy in the US is that there is diversity of opinion here. We aren't all of one mind on a huge number of issues.
I personally think that what Assange did is fine (he's a civilian), and the soldier who broke just about every opsec-related rule there is should be court-martialed, but that's not the topic.
The question of whether Wikileaks deserves a nomination focuses narrowly on individual observations of how exactly Wikileaks has contributed to peace on our planet. I think it's very much an open argument as to whether the information they have released has made the world more or less peaceful. That determination is completely separate from whether or not Wikileaks is a good thing, which I believe it is, on the whole.
Here, now you can read past the first sentence and properly respond to the OP:
Fair enough. I'm interested in seeing who wins the bet, but not sure who that will be. I recall a fair bit of conversation by the same pool of experts over global cooling back in the 70's. I know that the correct term is now climate change, and not global warming, but that seems a bit tongue-in-cheek...if we can't even define the *nature* of the problem, then why are we talking about plans of action?
It's not even that I'm skeptical, it's just that with all of the recent statistical model shenanigans in various scientific fields (some of which are a bit more solid than climatology), I don't know whether the experts know how to test their hypotheses, or whether they'll be using the same model when measuring in the future that they are using to make predictions today.
I find it very frustrating that so much of climatology is based on data that gets continually reworked and argued about.
Excellent example of a bad analogy, there.
The person making the prediction (being asked the question) in this case may not be a client scientist, but he has a track record of accurately describing temperature in the future.
You might not ask your cardiologist to change the oil in your car, but that's kind of the reverse example. Would you ask a physicist to design an overpass?
He's making a 10-year prediction. I think that'd be more "climate" than "weather".
*sigh*
If she has always struck you at being disingenuous at best (really, at *best*?), then of course it would appear to you that she's lost all perspective.
As someone who earns a living writing code on Microsoft's application stack, I'm not your total idealist when it comes to open source or free software. I do understand that there are reasons that people choose to use proprietary stuff. That said, I have a personal understanding of why free software is important, and why software patents are bad, period, that's not far removed from hers.
You're saying that because she thinks free software is better than proprietary software for her stated reasons, then she's not worth listening to. If that means that you think that the legal research she has done is not fairly representing the issues at hand, then I'd ask you to point out where we can see some evidence of that. SCO making someone angry is grounds for whatever they do afterwards to be self-serving rubbish?
That's an *awful* lot of protest over a person expressing disappointment...
I get what you're going for, it just doesn't sound likely...or impartial, for that matter.
I think of this as more of an "unintended consequences" scenario.
Yes, it's obvious that drilling in deep water is risky, but when there is a general refusal to allow drilling on land or near shore (at least in places known to have significant oil deposits), then where else can you drill? Allowing zero permits isn't really an option yet, since nearly all transportation uses refined oil as a power source.
To me, this seems like a case where environmental protection got very much in its own way without intending to. It certainly would have been easier to both stop a leak and to clean up after it for a similar accident that occurred on land or in 100 feet of water.
Along those lines, my favorite sentence was this one:
The lack of understanding there is mind boggling. It's not surprising that she's non-apologetic if she doesn't understand the fundamental gap in comprehending copyright evinced by that statement.
If you mean that collective will is the idea behind democracy, then you just made a mistake in saying "it works that way". I said collections of individuals are better at managing power than individuals. You said that the *opposite* of collective management is elitism, aristocracy, oligarchy. Difficult to understand which way you're attempting to disagree.
That's not a misstatement, as we're talking about two different things. You're discussing the ability of projects to be self-sustaining, and I'm talking about the ability of business to grow.
In both of your examples, you are not talking about a closed ecosystem. In both examples, there is a reliance on outside investment in order to spur growth. If there is no "outside" (i.e. all companies are collectives, and all are equally owned by all people), then there is no place for further investment to come from, and no growth path.
That (and the rest that's unquoted) sounds wonderful, but it doesn't work that way (this is not a case of me being "pretty sure"...I'm sure). The idea that all of mankind will be content with some status quo...that no man or woman will ever feel a sense of ambition...is without merit. That's the fly in the ointment of what ,logically speaking, is an otherwise fine argument for socialism.
Human beings compete. They strive. They desire and yearn and want and hope and try. For you, it may not be monetary...you may gain satisfaction in performing a task well enough to gain accolades. Not everyone is so pure of thought, and going through this discussion from a position of assuming that people have no desire does not serve you well.
I did, in fact read the thread, and am in the process of voicing my disagreement. You believe that the internet was once a wild west, but is now well established. I believe that to be untrue. Look to Facebook and Google's *current* tete-a-tete as an anecdotal example. That, however is not the wider point.
There is always a new frontier...a new paradigm...a new hot place to be, whether that's in technology, business, art, or whatever. In that place, there are many players. Some succeed, and some do not. For every Andy Warhol, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet, there are countless millions who were less successful, and billions who did not have the temerity to even try to be. It has happened countless times before, and will happen countless times again. The old ceases t
Your implication is that individuals are better at managing power than collections of individuals.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. It's a delicate balance. On one hand, you have pure democracy (which you propose), in which case, a majority of one decides the issue, regardless of the opinion of the just-barely-a-minority. Companies succeed by out-competing other companies on a variety of levels. Completely distributed ownership destroys the incentive that success provides.
If I own shares in every cookie company, and so does everyone else, then the idea of ownership becomes meaningless. What does my ownership get me? What good does my investment do for me or anyone else? How does that ownership and investment help those companies to succeed?
There are a variety of things that one could argue don't work in free markets, but what *does* work about [regulated] free markets is that new players have ample opportunity to supplant existing ones. 20 years ago, Google was in its infancy, and Yahoo was a far more influential company. Today, yahoo is all but gone, and Google stands toe-to-toe with any other tech company out there.
In another 20 years, we'll be having this same conversation about some as-yet-unknown tech startup doing the same thing.
Limiting company size or enforcing distributed ownership would definitely put the brakes on growth, but that's not the point, is it? The point is that we shouldn't allow a confusion between economic success (of an individual or company) and political power. The boundary has little to do with the size of the company, and much to do with the influence they are allowed to exert on our elected representatives. In that regard, those representatives are just as culpable as any shrewd corporate type.
I didn't say anything about knowing it's shot at you...
If an non-US sub is 30 miles off the coast of California, opens tubes and *prepares* to launch something, that's enough. You can't just wait to see which way the projectile is headed after they shoot it, you prevent the shot from ever being taken. That was part of my point.
Don't think China, think North Korea.
If they lobbed an ICBM from NK *to* the US, we'd be firing something back in quick order. In terms of demonstrating the same capability without garnering that level of response, sneaking a sub to *our* coast and sending a missile all the way back to NK makes a pretty obvious point...I'm interested in hearing what the thing's destination was (a detail that has been absent from reports I've read so far).
China can launch spaceships into orbit; they have nothing to prove. North Korea wants people to pay attention to them, and has been less able to get people to pay attention than they would like.
As many have already said, if this was a US military launch, it would either have been done somewhere that people wouldn't have seen it, or there would have been an announcement and official press coverage (whether it was real coverage or smokescreen). It's not like it's a big secret from the public in the US that we have missiles and can launch them from subs, so it makes no sense to deny that we launched one in full view of millions of people.
...up until the point that they open weapons tubes and make it clear that they're preparing to shoot something, yes. Even in international waters, that kind of act of aggression would necessitate a pretty immediate response.
...actually, the parent was blathering about "it's a tax deduction" because the grandparent made it seem as if the contribution was pure altruism and had no other effect or incentive or or for the company. My comment was about goodwill not necessarily being the prime motivator.
Actually, all of the responses I saw said the same thing "OOH! This guy thinks they get all of that money as a deduction! I'm going to correct him!". I get your point, please try to understand mine.
Even...The Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
(yes, I abhor generalizations)
That's because it's a tax deduction and looks good in statements to the public (e.g. the one you just made).
In what way does spelling acumen limit your ability to stuff testicles in your mouth?
Honestly...if you're gonna say "teabaggers", at least have the cojones to not post AC...it's not like /. is a bastion of conservative thought.
Ahh, shit. IHBT
Flamebait is for people who make controversial statements without the motive behind what would otherwise be a Troll. You're correct, the distinction is a minor one, and motive is key, I suppose.
One example of a troll would be a GNAA post. A vaguely corresponding flamebait post (race being a factor) would be something about Bill Cosby having it right when he said that black Americans need to take more responsibility. It's a fine line, and different people see the line in different places.