I agree. Political change is constant. I am certainly optimistic about the future. I just don't have much faith in the ability of political reforms to effect much good in the long term. We're still fighting for the reforms that we won in the '30s and '60s. As the famous abolitionist Frederick Douglass said "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will."
First off, I'd like to say that I agree with you for the most part. I just have this gut reaction when people start talking about incentives to vote, because they are usually going to start talking about human nature (people are lazy, people are stupid, etc.), which I strongly disagree with, people are totally capable of governing themselves.
Although for the most part I would agree that people voting does matter, even in today's system, realistically speaking, when people say that if they vote it won't make a difference, they are on a certain level correct, although I would argue that this is currently due to the electoral college. If you live in a state that has a large majority for either party, and you are in the minority, your vote is effectively thrown away, at that point, you could make the argument that your vote doesn't make a difference, as realistically speaking, there is no way for you to get the rest of the state to vote, which might change things. As for questions of degree, I would agree that they are indeed important, but that importance is greatly exaggerated due to how narrow the debate has become. When people like Hillary Clinton are saying that the Deomcratic Party needs to open its doors to pro-lifers, I feel that I do not have to say too much.
I'm all for ranked choice instant runoff voting. It has a couple of minor problems, but it is far better than our current system. The same thing goes for campaign finance, with the ammendment debates are done along the same lines.
The major issue that I have with this is that it is not in either of the parties' best interest to make these sorts of changes. They are doing just fine right now, and giving people a real sense of power would cause some serious issues for them. they have shown a paranoia about comepetition that is nothing short of impressive (see COINTELPRO) and would probably agree with me that the interests of the majority of people run contrary to their own interests (The last president who was not a millionaire was Eisenhower, and he was a general).
Sometimes it almost makes me think of the bit in The Matrix where they were talking about people accepting things if there was a choice, even in that choice is just an illusion.
Maybe people aren't voting due to lack of choice. I mean, seriously, take the last election. Bush was pro-war, Kerry was pro-war; Bush was pro-life, Kerry was pro-life; Bush was anti-gay, Kerry was anti-gay, the list goes on. Throw in third party candidates being locked out of debate (see the presidential debates) and facing massive opposition to even getting a ballot line in many states, as well as the truly massive amount of money it takes to get airtime. Forcing people to choose between two parties that represent the same interests probably won't help much. On the other hand, actually broadening the debate through things like campaign finance laws, removal of the electoral collage and manditory equal press time would most likely have a better effect. The reason that people aren't voting isn't because they aren't being prodded hard enough, its because most people react poorly to the feeling that they are unable to make a difference.
Even military force would not save the rain forest, in all probability. The reason that the environment is getting screwed over to the extent that it is is that there is a financial incentive to do so. It is almost always cheaper to do something the dirty way, so your shareholders will crucify you if you try to do it differently (or you will simply get destroyed on the open market). The same thing is true for people on a smaller scale weather they be individuals or small businesses. Tragedy of the Commons and all that. The problem is systemic, so long as the incentive is there, it will keep happening.
Truth be told, though, I'm more woried about things like the ocean, finite groundwater supplies (see Los Angeles) and lack of incentive to create a long term solution. And for the record, I don't blame it on cosumers.
I personally don't care about things like spotlight, I know where my stuff is. The interesting question is how this sort of thing de-emphasizes actually organizing your stuff in the first place and how a system like this would affect children who grow up with it. Would they have trouble with simple organizational tasks? It seems that peoples personal organization styles mirror the way that they think, I don't think that what we need is less organization or less emphasis on logical thought. Its bad enough that you can take an Intro to Logic class in college and see people who look as they are encountering an entirely new way to think.
Also worth mentioning is people who don't own a car and use public tranportation, a motorcycle or a bicycle for everything. I ride everywhere, and I hate picking up big stuff, most of the time, it would just be easier to order it off Amazon, if not for the shipping charge. Looks like I have a solution now.
Can refusing to buy the label's music really change things? I doubt it. I agree with the first poster saying that the format under which music is released is not a very good indicator of quality. Although I don't like how the major labels do business, me not buying a CD, or even thousands of people like me not buying their CDs will not change things. They have a financial incentive to screw over the artists and the consumers, thus, I believe, degrading the music that they are related with. Until that financial incentive is removed, things can't get too much better. The consumer politics approach only addresses specific symptoms of a problem, it doesn't deal with the root causes.
Huh? Single occupant cars? No CBs? Conversations with passengers and on CBs are slightly different. If I'm driving and talking to someone in the passenger seat, and I need to concentrate on the road and pause, they know why I'm doing it and don't bug me. Talking on a CB is also slightly different, as the established etiquette is that people are probably doing something else, and pauses are not just accepted, but inherent to the format. Cell phones are entirely different, if you are talking on a cell phone, and need to concentrate on the road, the person on the other end has no idea, and is likely to pester you if you need to pause. Talking is not the problem, the format is the problem.
Yeah, but it is nice to have the page down key on the same button as the down arrow, for me at least, I guess that I'm just too lazy to reach all the way up there to hit a different button.
I'd have to disagree that if the government took total control of education that people would simply cease to question authority, be creative, etc. Looking at history, oppression breeds resistance. Although it is clearly not exactly the same for subtle oppression (like the schools discouraging creativity), I believe the outcome will be the same.
On my iBook, I use the function key with the up and down arrow to page up/down and the function key with the left/right buttons is home/end, which is really quite convenient, once you get used to it. Now whenever I find myself using another computer, I realize that I'm reaching for the function key that isn't there.
For me, tabbed browsing is something that seemed pretty lame, until I started to use it. Basically, I'll often be reading something and want to check out a link, but I dislike opening multiple windows and I want to finish what I'm reading first. The next step was that when I'm reading something sometimes I'll think of something else that I want to look up, and so I open a browser tab and put in the address and switch back to the original tab. Finally, Camino comes with an 'open bookmarks folder' option, basically allowing me to open all of my news sites or webcomics with one click, and load them in paralell, small, small, but nice. Once you get used to it, you find yourself depending on it.
Just marry someone who has a relative who is a professional photographer. Seriously, my sister got married last month, and between our two families, there were something like 4 professional photographers present. Needless to say, there will be plenty of photos to choose from, practically for free.
When you look at it, it is much like cryptography. Sure, people like terrorists can use it, but then again, we can as well. If, on the other hand, someone other than us developed it (because we weren't allowed, for example), who is to say that we would have access at it. So when you look at it, either way its going to eventually be used for something bad, its just a matter of weather or not we get a chance to use it for something good as well.
that, when it comes down to it, it really isn't innovating. Sure it is improving, and it is breaking new ground, but so far, it doesn't seem to be trying to grow beyond a desktop/server OS as much as it should. I really think that computers as we know them are on the verge of being rethought, its just a matter of who does that rethinking. I hear a lot of people talking about how Linux needs to beat MS on the desktop front. It doesn't. Getting rid of an entreanched and well organized entity like MS is extremely difficult at the least. Linux/OSS should probably look at being the first one to get to the post-desktop and own that. I'm not sure what that will be, although I think that networked small devices is probably a good bet. The technology for all of this is available, it just needs to be put together. The other advantage of this is that it plays heavily on Linux's strengths, namely security and stability. Joe Blow may not care if his computer crashes every once and a while but if his TV or fridge or microwave stops working because he got hacked by his neighbor's 8 year old kid, security and stability will suddenly become strong selling points. Not to say that this approach would guaruntee success, however, even if we did get there before MS. What needs to happen first is some campain finance reform, so we could at least have a chance of having a president who isn't actively working against the public intrest.
I think that you are missing a large part of the point. I totally agree with what you are saying as regards to a genetic monoculture. But there is a problem when it comes to memes, or, rather, what values society is instilling into our culture. In this country (US), at least, most people are raised to be consumers. Combined with our policies regarding IP, copyrights, etc. this really is not sustainable. In order to remain prosperous, we need to produce something, not just consume. Most people seem to have no ide what makes them happy, these days, and instead pursue stuff. They seem to think that getting that new car will make them happier, whereas it really won't. This is the real problem with our society. In the long run, if we stay to this path, we are screwed.
Having spent a good amount of time on a motorcycle, I'd have to say that I think that this is a good idea. Even though it would be in your view at all times, it would most likely be in a corner. Combined with advances in visibility in motorcycle helmets and the ability to focus beyond what is right in front of you, I think that this could be a boon to cyclists.
3. In many parts of the US, it is impossible to get by without a car.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. There are some areas where it is nearly impossible to get along without a car, for example, Alaska. OTOH, I live in Anchorage, AK and I get along just fine on my bike. I agree that it simply wouldn't be feasable for the large majority of the population up here, with kids and all, but then again, Alaska is a special case, with better bike paths or better public transportation, it would be relatively easy to get along without a car.
From my experiences at school, I really don't think that availability/lack of computers are an issue, they are a tool, and have uses, but they really can't teach. The main problem is the teachers and what is being taught. In school, I saw no evidence of people being encouraged to think, everything was based on wrote memorization. Thats really the only reason to teach something like math beyond a certain point. In short, although schools need to teach some basic skills (reading, writing, arithmatic, etc.) which they are doing an OK job of, they need to at least encourage people to think for themselves in order to become productive members of society. If poeple got used to questioning ideas and critical thinking at an early age, I honestly don't think that nearly as many of them would do things like run up massive credit card debts.
Just my $.o2
I think that his point was that anything can become addicting. If you are doing something that makes you feel better, there is a chance that you will use that to escape from problems in your life. By doing so, you create a new feeling of normal, and if things continue along this line, you become addicted. Case in point: marijuana. Although there really aren't any withdrawl symptoms due to how long it takes for it to leave the system, there are plenty of people who _need_ to get high just to get through the day. The problem here is not the drug, its that our society is raising people to escape from thier problems instead of dealing with them.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially in a society where 1% of the population controls something like 95% of the wealth.
I agree. Political change is constant. I am certainly optimistic about the future. I just don't have much faith in the ability of political reforms to effect much good in the long term. We're still fighting for the reforms that we won in the '30s and '60s. As the famous abolitionist Frederick Douglass said "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will."
First off, I'd like to say that I agree with you for the most part. I just have this gut reaction when people start talking about incentives to vote, because they are usually going to start talking about human nature (people are lazy, people are stupid, etc.), which I strongly disagree with, people are totally capable of governing themselves.
Although for the most part I would agree that people voting does matter, even in today's system, realistically speaking, when people say that if they vote it won't make a difference, they are on a certain level correct, although I would argue that this is currently due to the electoral college. If you live in a state that has a large majority for either party, and you are in the minority, your vote is effectively thrown away, at that point, you could make the argument that your vote doesn't make a difference, as realistically speaking, there is no way for you to get the rest of the state to vote, which might change things. As for questions of degree, I would agree that they are indeed important, but that importance is greatly exaggerated due to how narrow the debate has become. When people like Hillary Clinton are saying that the Deomcratic Party needs to open its doors to pro-lifers, I feel that I do not have to say too much.
I'm all for ranked choice instant runoff voting. It has a couple of minor problems, but it is far better than our current system. The same thing goes for campaign finance, with the ammendment debates are done along the same lines.
The major issue that I have with this is that it is not in either of the parties' best interest to make these sorts of changes. They are doing just fine right now, and giving people a real sense of power would cause some serious issues for them. they have shown a paranoia about comepetition that is nothing short of impressive (see COINTELPRO) and would probably agree with me that the interests of the majority of people run contrary to their own interests (The last president who was not a millionaire was Eisenhower, and he was a general).
Sometimes it almost makes me think of the bit in The Matrix where they were talking about people accepting things if there was a choice, even in that choice is just an illusion.
Maybe people aren't voting due to lack of choice. I mean, seriously, take the last election. Bush was pro-war, Kerry was pro-war; Bush was pro-life, Kerry was pro-life; Bush was anti-gay, Kerry was anti-gay, the list goes on. Throw in third party candidates being locked out of debate (see the presidential debates) and facing massive opposition to even getting a ballot line in many states, as well as the truly massive amount of money it takes to get airtime. Forcing people to choose between two parties that represent the same interests probably won't help much. On the other hand, actually broadening the debate through things like campaign finance laws, removal of the electoral collage and manditory equal press time would most likely have a better effect. The reason that people aren't voting isn't because they aren't being prodded hard enough, its because most people react poorly to the feeling that they are unable to make a difference.
Even military force would not save the rain forest, in all probability. The reason that the environment is getting screwed over to the extent that it is is that there is a financial incentive to do so. It is almost always cheaper to do something the dirty way, so your shareholders will crucify you if you try to do it differently (or you will simply get destroyed on the open market). The same thing is true for people on a smaller scale weather they be individuals or small businesses. Tragedy of the Commons and all that. The problem is systemic, so long as the incentive is there, it will keep happening.
Truth be told, though, I'm more woried about things like the ocean, finite groundwater supplies (see Los Angeles) and lack of incentive to create a long term solution. And for the record, I don't blame it on cosumers.
I think that by family, they meant large corporations.
I personally don't care about things like spotlight, I know where my stuff is. The interesting question is how this sort of thing de-emphasizes actually organizing your stuff in the first place and how a system like this would affect children who grow up with it. Would they have trouble with simple organizational tasks? It seems that peoples personal organization styles mirror the way that they think, I don't think that what we need is less organization or less emphasis on logical thought. Its bad enough that you can take an Intro to Logic class in college and see people who look as they are encountering an entirely new way to think.
Also worth mentioning is people who don't own a car and use public tranportation, a motorcycle or a bicycle for everything. I ride everywhere, and I hate picking up big stuff, most of the time, it would just be easier to order it off Amazon, if not for the shipping charge. Looks like I have a solution now.
Can refusing to buy the label's music really change things? I doubt it. I agree with the first poster saying that the format under which music is released is not a very good indicator of quality. Although I don't like how the major labels do business, me not buying a CD, or even thousands of people like me not buying their CDs will not change things. They have a financial incentive to screw over the artists and the consumers, thus, I believe, degrading the music that they are related with. Until that financial incentive is removed, things can't get too much better. The consumer politics approach only addresses specific symptoms of a problem, it doesn't deal with the root causes.
Huh? Single occupant cars? No CBs? Conversations with passengers and on CBs are slightly different. If I'm driving and talking to someone in the passenger seat, and I need to concentrate on the road and pause, they know why I'm doing it and don't bug me. Talking on a CB is also slightly different, as the established etiquette is that people are probably doing something else, and pauses are not just accepted, but inherent to the format. Cell phones are entirely different, if you are talking on a cell phone, and need to concentrate on the road, the person on the other end has no idea, and is likely to pester you if you need to pause. Talking is not the problem, the format is the problem.
Yeah, but it is nice to have the page down key on the same button as the down arrow, for me at least, I guess that I'm just too lazy to reach all the way up there to hit a different button.
I'd have to disagree that if the government took total control of education that people would simply cease to question authority, be creative, etc. Looking at history, oppression breeds resistance. Although it is clearly not exactly the same for subtle oppression (like the schools discouraging creativity), I believe the outcome will be the same.
On my iBook, I use the function key with the up and down arrow to page up/down and the function key with the left/right buttons is home/end, which is really quite convenient, once you get used to it. Now whenever I find myself using another computer, I realize that I'm reaching for the function key that isn't there.
For me, tabbed browsing is something that seemed pretty lame, until I started to use it. Basically, I'll often be reading something and want to check out a link, but I dislike opening multiple windows and I want to finish what I'm reading first. The next step was that when I'm reading something sometimes I'll think of something else that I want to look up, and so I open a browser tab and put in the address and switch back to the original tab. Finally, Camino comes with an 'open bookmarks folder' option, basically allowing me to open all of my news sites or webcomics with one click, and load them in paralell, small, small, but nice. Once you get used to it, you find yourself depending on it.
Just marry someone who has a relative who is a professional photographer. Seriously, my sister got married last month, and between our two families, there were something like 4 professional photographers present. Needless to say, there will be plenty of photos to choose from, practically for free.
When you look at it, it is much like cryptography. Sure, people like terrorists can use it, but then again, we can as well. If, on the other hand, someone other than us developed it (because we weren't allowed, for example), who is to say that we would have access at it. So when you look at it, either way its going to eventually be used for something bad, its just a matter of weather or not we get a chance to use it for something good as well.
that, when it comes down to it, it really isn't innovating. Sure it is improving, and it is breaking new ground, but so far, it doesn't seem to be trying to grow beyond a desktop/server OS as much as it should. I really think that computers as we know them are on the verge of being rethought, its just a matter of who does that rethinking. I hear a lot of people talking about how Linux needs to beat MS on the desktop front. It doesn't. Getting rid of an entreanched and well organized entity like MS is extremely difficult at the least. Linux/OSS should probably look at being the first one to get to the post-desktop and own that. I'm not sure what that will be, although I think that networked small devices is probably a good bet. The technology for all of this is available, it just needs to be put together. The other advantage of this is that it plays heavily on Linux's strengths, namely security and stability. Joe Blow may not care if his computer crashes every once and a while but if his TV or fridge or microwave stops working because he got hacked by his neighbor's 8 year old kid, security and stability will suddenly become strong selling points. Not to say that this approach would guaruntee success, however, even if we did get there before MS. What needs to happen first is some campain finance reform, so we could at least have a chance of having a president who isn't actively working against the public intrest.
I think that you are missing a large part of the point. I totally agree with what you are saying as regards to a genetic monoculture. But there is a problem when it comes to memes, or, rather, what values society is instilling into our culture. In this country (US), at least, most people are raised to be consumers. Combined with our policies regarding IP, copyrights, etc. this really is not sustainable. In order to remain prosperous, we need to produce something, not just consume. Most people seem to have no ide what makes them happy, these days, and instead pursue stuff. They seem to think that getting that new car will make them happier, whereas it really won't. This is the real problem with our society. In the long run, if we stay to this path, we are screwed.
Having spent a good amount of time on a motorcycle, I'd have to say that I think that this is a good idea. Even though it would be in your view at all times, it would most likely be in a corner. Combined with advances in visibility in motorcycle helmets and the ability to focus beyond what is right in front of you, I think that this could be a boon to cyclists.
3. In many parts of the US, it is impossible to get by without a car.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. There are some areas where it is nearly impossible to get along without a car, for example, Alaska. OTOH, I live in Anchorage, AK and I get along just fine on my bike. I agree that it simply wouldn't be feasable for the large majority of the population up here, with kids and all, but then again, Alaska is a special case, with better bike paths or better public transportation, it would be relatively easy to get along without a car.
From my experiences at school, I really don't think that availability/lack of computers are an issue, they are a tool, and have uses, but they really can't teach. The main problem is the teachers and what is being taught. In school, I saw no evidence of people being encouraged to think, everything was based on wrote memorization. Thats really the only reason to teach something like math beyond a certain point. In short, although schools need to teach some basic skills (reading, writing, arithmatic, etc.) which they are doing an OK job of, they need to at least encourage people to think for themselves in order to become productive members of society. If poeple got used to questioning ideas and critical thinking at an early age, I honestly don't think that nearly as many of them would do things like run up massive credit card debts. Just my $.o2
I think that his point was that anything can become addicting. If you are doing something that makes you feel better, there is a chance that you will use that to escape from problems in your life. By doing so, you create a new feeling of normal, and if things continue along this line, you become addicted. Case in point: marijuana. Although there really aren't any withdrawl symptoms due to how long it takes for it to leave the system, there are plenty of people who _need_ to get high just to get through the day. The problem here is not the drug, its that our society is raising people to escape from thier problems instead of dealing with them.