Then how do you explain that perhaps the most capitalist country in the world, USA, has a system where politicians are more likely to be bought, than in other countries with socialist ideals, like Norway? Is it a coincidence that money has a greater influence on US politics than in Europe?
I don't know the details of what you are talking about but my guess is that the energy put in will be too costly for the amount of water that you get. I haven't heard of large-scale commercial fresh water systems using your idea. If it were feasible, someone would have done it (parts in the Middle East or Northern Africa would use such systems would have already used them--I haven't heard of any). Then again, I'm not too sure...
Another thing to keep in mind is that poor countries, like India, cannot afford certain things. If your system is too costly, the citizens in India can't afford it. Most people are poor and the middle class isn't that large. So your system has to be really efficient and win with economies of scale (i.e. huge number of customers at very low prices)...
I kind of like it, too. However, I am full aware of the fact that they have a snowball's chance of winning. They are just not viable, period.
One of the theories in the left wing (although this applies to the right wing too) behind running minor candidates is to educate the masses and bring issues to the forefront. Even if one loses, they can accomplish a whole lot by educating the clueless masses who rely on mainstream corporate-controlled media and government propaganda for all their information.
For instance, debates with minor candidates will push ignored issues at the general public. Since USA is a two-party (almost one-party) state, debates aren't THAT important. However, you'll see the impact in British-style systems where you have multiple parties (say Canada or Britain or Germany or whatever). The 3rd, or 4th, or 5th candidate will bring up issues the mainstream parties ignore (eg. worker rights, environment, homelessness, religion, etc)
It shouldn't surprise you why a liberal publication like New York Times actually calls for boycotting all candidates except the Democratic and Republican candidates. This is done with a purpose...
Sharpton, while entertaining, has suspect leftist credentials. Why else would his campaign be funded and controlled by a conservative Republican? Dean's record as a leftist is not really that strongly leftist at all (he's leftist, but not far left). Kucinich? Yes, he's leftist for sure.
Sharpton being funded by the right seems rather bizarre, given that he is probably hated by the right more than anyone else. But such things don't surprise me because you wouldn't believe how politics is funded. For instance, did you know that some of Kerry's biggest donors are also some of the biggest donors to certain Republicans? Noam Chomsky once remarked that US politicis is bought. It seems that way at times...
Even though the intent of him running is to give Bush another 4 years? Nader is punch drunk in power, somehow getting off on the idea of being kingmaker for George W. Bush twice in a row. No leftist of any kind could be happy with that.
Nader is cuasing controversy on the left. Some people think he shouldn't be running; some think he should. I personally think ANYONE should be allowed to run. Calling for people not to run is kind of idiotic, not to mention "undemocratic".
I'm a radical (on the far-left) so Kerry and Bush are pretty similar to me. The rhetoric is different but their actions will be similar. From a far-left perspective, the Republicans and the Democrats that have been elected over the last 50 years have shown very little difference. Both parties support war; both parties destroy the environment; both parties are in bed with corporations; and so on. As we discussed already, Kerry voted in favour of the Iraqi war, supports the Patriot Act, and so on. Does anyone seriously think Kerry will make much of a difference? Nope.
I'm not American but if I was in USA, I would vote for Nader or the Green Party, even if it means electing Bush. Voting for Kerry will not make much different from my perspective. Furthermore, by following the "Anyone but Bush" philosophy, one may end up allying with the devil (eg. anyone but the communists->Usama bin Laden; anyone but the communists->Nazis). Clearly anyone with a left-wing conscience should avoid supporting the establishment. Typically, the further away from the center you are, the more you follow my line of thinking (i.e. you stick to principles); the closer you are to the center (say center-left), the more likely you are to support candidates/parties that violate your principles in order to prevent someone else from rising to power.
Leftists lack a healthy disrespect for government power.
Most anarchists are leftists so you are not accurate. After all, anarchists have the least respect for authority and no one of the right wing (except anarchists eg. anarcho-capitalists) come close. Having said that, I kno
Obviously you are a conformist, who values the status quo. I, on the other hand, am glad to see people running against massive odds, with practically zero corporate backing. It always boils down to the corporate and establishment support. Since I'm a leftist, I'm glad to see Kuicinich, Sharpton, and Dean run. Similarly, I'm glad to see Ralph Nader run, even though the establishment hates him.
What you are saying is good advice if you are a developer. If you are just a user that just wants to install and run stuff, keeping around the build tree is a no-go.
I think users pretty much have to go with binaries and packages. Building from source is almost impossible these days.
I knew that (thanks for replying though). I was referring to when the original files weren't available. I hardly ever keep the original files around. How do you uninstall then?
Getting the original source is not as easy as you imply. You have to hunt down the right version; you are not sure what you have installed; you don't know where you got it from; have to re-download everything; etc. Yes, you can overcome all of these issues but it is a huge hassle. People without broadband, like me:(, don't like to download the source again just to uninstall. In contrast, uninstalling packages is just click-and-go.
(Actually there are other reasons I dont' like sources too. For example, I don't want to waste time compiling--let alone install development libraries. BUT, the uninstall issue ithe #1 reason I use packages).
How can you be certain that visually designed programs will be worse than "linguistically designed*" programs as are done now? Can the poor performance in the past be any indicator? Nope!
I actually had a similar vision as Bill Gates (no, I'm not trying to take credit.. just saying it:) ). I think future software development will be done in a visual manner. Already, this is happening so it isn't a big revelation.
For example, how many people design GUI elements, like a dialog box, using visual tools? Practically everyone. Hardly anyone does the coding to draw a checkbox, for example, by hand. Of course, this is in its infancy. Therefore, you still need to code the logic behind the GUI. In the future, the code behind the GUI will be visual as well.
Perhaps the best example of how I see software development progressing is UML. Using UML, one designs software using graphical elements and the code is, in theory, automatically (or easily) generated. UML isn't so good right now because it is new. Also, it isn't 100% graphical (because the design environment is still highly geared towards tradional programming eg. you are doing nothing more than showing relationships between classes). But in the future, I expect to see a future version of UML, or something even more advanced become dominant.
(* I call it that because it is somewhat true. Modern day programming is like writing. You use words to carry out a task. There is a lot of similarity between a programming language and a written language).
Having said all that, I don't really agree with Bill Gates about his hardware comment. I am not sure if Bill really means what he says, or if he is just trying to influence the software industry (i.e. since Microsoft is primarily a software company, it is in its interest to downplay hardware). It is difficult for me to see how hardware costs can be almost "free". One of the reasons hardware costs are low now is because the market is a perfect competition. However, my theory is that corporations (or any business) will attempt to monopolize the industry. So the day will come when only a few companies rule each hardware sector. When that happens, I can't see how costs can be low. Already, some industries are being monopolized. The PC video card industry, for instance, is divided up between 2 video card companies (ATI and Nvidia). Around 5 years ago, there were around 6 companies. Video card costs are a huge component of a computer now, whereas they were a small component 5 to 10 years ago. I claim that this is primarily due to the oligopoly that was formed between ATI and Nvidia. The same thing will happen in other sectors. It wouldn't surprise me if, say, there are only 2 or 3 companies that produce memory in 5 years.
I think what would happen is that you would use pre-written libraries (or code snippets, if you want to call it that). The task of the designer would be to assemble those libraries. Actually this is exactly what happens right now with software development. You use libraries and their functions to develop something more complex. How many people write applications without using MFC, network libraries, QT, GTK, and other standardized libraries? Hardly any. The only difference would be that things would be graphical now.
PSpice is not that far off as an analogy. You actually DO have Pspice components. For example, a resistor or a transistor is actually a library component. Obviously it is somewhat different because, as you pointed out, PSpice performs calculations based on "initial conditions", rather than implement a function. However, the way it is used will be identical to visual languages. Instead of plopping down resistors, or power sources, or whatever, you may use a library components such as IP connection, FFT (fast fourier transform), JPEG decode, mouse input, or something.
Another example of visual design is UML. In theory, you can design a complex software system in UML, which is quasi-graphical (sort of), and then the code will be automatically (or easily) generated. UML tools are in their infancy so this theory isn't put into practice.
If your idea of an actual candidate is one that wins, then you may be right. Otherwise, anyone that is eligible to receive a vote is a viable candidate in my eyes. I do not denigrate anyone...
As far as liberal views are concerned, I would say that the majority of liberals object to the Iraqi war and the Guantanamo incarcerations. You may be right about the Patriot Act though. Many liberals probably have no idea what it is. As far as conservatives are concerned, only a minority object to Guantanomo Bay and the war. The majority support it.
What the author proposes can be benefitial to some degree. However, it is NOT going to solve the famines and the starvation that is common throughout the world.
The production of food has NEVER been the problem. Instead, the problem has always been distribution and inequality. There is more than enough food in the world to feed EVERYONE--this has always been true over in the long term. But the food is not distributed evenly. You are not going to fix the problem by producing more.
For example, the author points out Africa and how it is having problems. Unfortunately it seems to have escaped many people's realization that there are many countries where people starve yet they (net) export food? What does this tell you? This basically means that the people are too poor to be able to afford the food. People spend their labour on the farms yet can't afford to buy the food that they help produce. This is not a rarity; rather, it the norm with poor people.
Regardless of how much food is produced, as long as the inequality problem exists, starvation will exist. It's about time people realized that...
Can't see the samples on the website (it seems to be overloaded or something)...
I support making it easier for users to access information. Using CSS will be a definite benefit to Linux help pages. Right now, the TLD docs are very basic (almost like a one big essay with no pictures, weak headings, etc.) If CSS can be used to make it easier to retrieve information, I would welcome it.
There is no U in favor, so the spelling has been corrected for you.
Thanks...;)
As far as Clinton and Kerry are concerned, they are not very liberal. Kerry is almost a conservative; he is a centrist with left-leaning rhetoric. He voted for the Iraqi war, voted for the Patriot Act, and hasn't really said anything about Guantanomo Bay. Most of these so-called "liberals" in USA aren't liberals. During this presidential campaign, I think the only ones that I would consider seriously on the left-wing are Sharpton, Kuicinich, and Howard Dean.
As far as neoconservatism is concerned, I don't see your point. I scanned the Wikipedia entry on it and I don't see anything wrong with it. The term is NOT meaningless, contrary to some. Even wikipedia has a long write-up on it. If the term were meaningless, you couldn't classify Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith, Kristol, et al, as neoconservatives. And you wouldn't have such a long write-up on Wikipedia. The present US government, and the most popular form of conservatism in USA in neoconservatism. I don't see how you can say it doesn't exist.
So are you saying that when someone is ACCUSED of joining an enemy group that they automatically lose citizenship? I guess you must love giving the government the right to strip citizenship by accusing people of something. Here I thought citizenship cannot be stripped. Maybe I'm living on another planet...
BTW, he hasn't committed any crimes. He hasn't been charged with anything. That's the issue. If he actually did something, it would be easy to prove in front of a court. The US govt is holding him because they don't have anything solid.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. You imply that you care about citizens but then revert to giving the govt power to strip citizenship arbitrarily. You also are in favour of holding people without any charges for committing bogus* "horrific crimes".
(* I say bogus because it hasn't been proven in a court of law. I am not saying he is innocent in the sense that he hasn't done anything; just that he hasn't faced a judge. That to me counts as bogus because the govt can claim anything and people like you would consider it to be true. Good thing we have a legal system that is sometimes independent of the government (unfortunately for people like you I'm sure))
I don't even know if you realize what you are supporting... probably not.
The New Republic CLAIMS to be liberal but it is anything but. And no, I don't have it confused with National Review...
In any case, conservative magazines tend to favor the people having power instead of government having power.
Are you being serious? Is that why conservatives support the Patriot Act, spying on anti-war activists, holding people without trial, etc? Also, how do you explains why conservatives are in favour of banning homosexuality, criminalizing drugs, etc?
Conservatism is conservatism. The "neo" label is used by few, and is pretty much meaningless.
Where have you been for the last few years? Neoconservatism is the most popular form of conservatism in USA right now. Obviously that fact has flew by you.
New Republic is a neoconservative pro-government magazine. They claim to be liberals but have nothing to do with liberalism. They are heavily influenced by the modern neoconservative movement.
I can't believe that anyone, let alone the Slashdot editors, take their opinions on "tyranny and dictatorship" seriously. New Republic wouldn't even know what democracy was even if it hit them on their head...
If anyone wants to know the true impact of internet on dictatorship, they should go and ask someone who knows what's going on. This certainly doesn't include New Republic...
Wow... it's amazing what type of people you meet on Slashdot. Since there are so many people reading, you run into all sorts of characters. I would have never thought anyone that was involved in gold, let alone from Alaska, would be reading my message:)
How do you know what sort of gold to invest in? For instance, are the American Eagles, Canadian Maple Leafs and Swiss 'whatever' standardized in some manner? I'm basically thinking of bars or boullions (or whatever they are called) and not coins. I was reading somewhere that coins are not a good investment (at least for me) because their value depends on other things (like how collectible it is, how rare, etc). So bars/boullions/whatever is what I'm thinking of. Are there standardized bars/whatever? Do you know of them? If someone bought a bar/whatever, would others recognize it easily (like currency)? Or does each gold company print its own bars?
Also, you might be biased, but what are the advantages of gold vs silver?
DISCLAIMER: Some of the things I say may be blasphemous. It's hard for an atheist like me to get my point across without being blasphemous.
I don't know much about religions and this applies to Christianity too. Perhaps someone else can jump in and provide some solid examples. Until someone else does so, I'll just give my thoughts (which admittedly is based more on popular views on Christianity than anything.)
To start off, let me attack what you put in brackets:
(Note, Biblical doctrine, not historical. Various churches over the years have made many mistakes and I'll admit that as quickly as anyone else. But God shouldn't be judged just because his people screw up so often.)
Given that you admit that Churches, or more precisely priests, "screw up" what do you follow? How does one determine what is right and wrong? Is the present view of homosexuality by churches (i.e. homosexuality is bad and should not be permitted in society) correct? Or how about when the Christian churches supported Nazism? Or how about the Christian fundamentalists in USA claiming that Islam is evil and should be abolished? I mean, where do you draw the line?
Furthermore, if the majority of the followers of a particular religion accept some activity at a point in time (even though it is clearly immoral), is that reflective of religion or not? Is it wrong for an atheist to accurately say that the religion (or the following of that particular God) is wrong? If you are looking at Christianity I suppose the Crusades and the burning of "witches" come to mind. How do you know that you, as a follower of a particular religion, is not wrong just like billions before you were?
Now on to the main point...
How 'bout you pick off a few Biblical points, and I'll rationalize them?
Since I'm not a Christian, this would be tough but let me try. Does your religion not say that God created humans? I'm talking about the Adam and Eve story. Aren't humans supposed to be some "special" beings that were created by God? Given that, how do you explain that we are almost identical to other animals on earth? Our physical characteristics are similar, our behaviour is identical, and so on. How do you reconcile this? Are humans "special" as religion says, or are they just animals are science says? Science is more right here...
Another example would be Noah's Ark. Doesn't Christianity say that Noah rounded up all the animals and went to a ship? Does this make any (rational) sense at all? Can any human really round up all the animals? Right now, with more advanced technology, we still can't. In fact, we still discover new species every year. And you are telling me that Noah managed to round up every animal? Also this event supposedly happened a few thousand years ago. Do you seriously believe that everythign was wiped out a few thousand years ago? Do you seriously believe that Noah even had contact with people in (Eastern) Asia or North and South America? Are you telling me that all these people were killed?
How old is the earth? Is it a few thousand as Christianity claims? How do you explain the dinosaurs? How do you explain the fact that there are other things (namely stars) that are older than what Christianity claims is the age of the universe? Or do you think the stars are figment of our imagination?
Lastly, do you still believe the earth is at the center of universe (as Christianity believed until the 1990's*)? Given that Christianity, and all its leading scholars and theists, were wrong at that time, can you honestly believe anything now?
Why are you even a Christian? Is it just because your parents were? What if I tell you that kings and queens forced people to follow their religion? How can you be sure that you are right in anything?
(* At least that's when the Catholic Church officially said that Galileo was right.)
My definition of rational does not deviate from a dictionary definition. Dictionaries basically say that rational is following reason. That's what it means to me too, although I like to think of it as being logic.
I am not familiar with the axiom of chioce in set theory. Can you summarize it for me? Thanks.
Whether something is intuitive or not is irrelevant. A lot of science is counter-intuitive but that doesn't mean anything. A good example is gravity. Most people would claim that gravity acts more strongly on a heavy object than a light one. Most people say that a one ton car, for example, will fall more quickly to the earth than a 100kg rock. Yet that is not true. Both will hit the ground at the same time (in theory, with low air resistance). What is intuitive is completely wrong. So whether something is intuitive or not makes little difference to reality. Religious people, and non-scientific people, base their lives on intuition but it can be wrong.
Back to your point... The difference between science and religion is that one follows logic while the other follow faith. That is why religion is irrational. Most of what religion says has to be taken at face value--in faith. You cannot question the principles. The details depend on religion so it's kind of hard to argue without going into specifics. But I guess one common principle is praying. Most religions claim that you must pray to some God. You just cannot rationalize this. You must simply follow the scripture (or some verbal deeds of the priest.) What is happening is that you are following faith and not logic.
You cannot prove or show in some logical manner that praying, for example, means anything. Does God reward those that pray? Not really. You can perform scientific studies to refute this, but you can also look at the terrible lives led by many religious people, who happen to be extremely poor and struggling.
So there you have it... just to recap, science follows logic. The axioms follow one from another. Relgion, in contrast, does not. You just take what the scripture or some priest says as truth. For example, a religious person cannot question why a priest/cleric must always be male*. You must simply take it on faith that the priest is a male and if you are female, well, oh well.
(* Pretty much true for all religions that I know of.)
This question is so idiotic that I'm surprised that it even made the front page. I'm not sure what basis the author is using to ask this question. Is it supposed to be philosophical? If not, why not ask what the world would be without IBM? IBM has had bigger impact on the world (including several immoral actions, such as funding Nazi Germany.) Or how about a world without Intel?
I fail to see the point of asking this question, unless the author is truly being philosophical, which I doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
Then how do you explain that perhaps the most capitalist country in the world, USA, has a system where politicians are more likely to be bought, than in other countries with socialist ideals, like Norway? Is it a coincidence that money has a greater influence on US politics than in Europe?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is a business opportunity for you ;)
I don't know the details of what you are talking about but my guess is that the energy put in will be too costly for the amount of water that you get. I haven't heard of large-scale commercial fresh water systems using your idea. If it were feasible, someone would have done it (parts in the Middle East or Northern Africa would use such systems would have already used them--I haven't heard of any). Then again, I'm not too sure...
Another thing to keep in mind is that poor countries, like India, cannot afford certain things. If your system is too costly, the citizens in India can't afford it. Most people are poor and the middle class isn't that large. So your system has to be really efficient and win with economies of scale (i.e. huge number of customers at very low prices)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It was a joke... I don't think clueless is the right word though (I don't think one can really use clueless when someone didn't get the joke)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I kind of like it, too. However, I am full aware of the fact that they have a snowball's chance of winning. They are just not viable, period. One of the theories in the left wing (although this applies to the right wing too) behind running minor candidates is to educate the masses and bring issues to the forefront. Even if one loses, they can accomplish a whole lot by educating the clueless masses who rely on mainstream corporate-controlled media and government propaganda for all their information.
For instance, debates with minor candidates will push ignored issues at the general public. Since USA is a two-party (almost one-party) state, debates aren't THAT important. However, you'll see the impact in British-style systems where you have multiple parties (say Canada or Britain or Germany or whatever). The 3rd, or 4th, or 5th candidate will bring up issues the mainstream parties ignore (eg. worker rights, environment, homelessness, religion, etc) It shouldn't surprise you why a liberal publication like New York Times actually calls for boycotting all candidates except the Democratic and Republican candidates. This is done with a purpose...
Sharpton, while entertaining, has suspect leftist credentials. Why else would his campaign be funded and controlled by a conservative Republican? Dean's record as a leftist is not really that strongly leftist at all (he's leftist, but not far left). Kucinich? Yes, he's leftist for sure.
Sharpton being funded by the right seems rather bizarre, given that he is probably hated by the right more than anyone else. But such things don't surprise me because you wouldn't believe how politics is funded. For instance, did you know that some of Kerry's biggest donors are also some of the biggest donors to certain Republicans? Noam Chomsky once remarked that US politicis is bought. It seems that way at times...
Even though the intent of him running is to give Bush another 4 years? Nader is punch drunk in power, somehow getting off on the idea of being kingmaker for George W. Bush twice in a row. No leftist of any kind could be happy with that.
Nader is cuasing controversy on the left. Some people think he shouldn't be running; some think he should. I personally think ANYONE should be allowed to run. Calling for people not to run is kind of idiotic, not to mention "undemocratic".
I'm a radical (on the far-left) so Kerry and Bush are pretty similar to me. The rhetoric is different but their actions will be similar. From a far-left perspective, the Republicans and the Democrats that have been elected over the last 50 years have shown very little difference. Both parties support war; both parties destroy the environment; both parties are in bed with corporations; and so on. As we discussed already, Kerry voted in favour of the Iraqi war, supports the Patriot Act, and so on. Does anyone seriously think Kerry will make much of a difference? Nope.
I'm not American but if I was in USA, I would vote for Nader or the Green Party, even if it means electing Bush. Voting for Kerry will not make much different from my perspective. Furthermore, by following the "Anyone but Bush" philosophy, one may end up allying with the devil (eg. anyone but the communists->Usama bin Laden; anyone but the communists->Nazis). Clearly anyone with a left-wing conscience should avoid supporting the establishment. Typically, the further away from the center you are, the more you follow my line of thinking (i.e. you stick to principles); the closer you are to the center (say center-left), the more likely you are to support candidates/parties that violate your principles in order to prevent someone else from rising to power.
Leftists lack a healthy disrespect for government power.
Most anarchists are leftists so you are not accurate. After all, anarchists have the least respect for authority and no one of the right wing (except anarchists eg. anarcho-capitalists) come close. Having said that, I kno
Obviously you are a conformist, who values the status quo. I, on the other hand, am glad to see people running against massive odds, with practically zero corporate backing. It always boils down to the corporate and establishment support. Since I'm a leftist, I'm glad to see Kuicinich, Sharpton, and Dean run. Similarly, I'm glad to see Ralph Nader run, even though the establishment hates him.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What you are saying is good advice if you are a developer. If you are just a user that just wants to install and run stuff, keeping around the build tree is a no-go.
I think users pretty much have to go with binaries and packages. Building from source is almost impossible these days.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I knew that (thanks for replying though). I was referring to when the original files weren't available. I hardly ever keep the original files around. How do you uninstall then?
:(, don't like to download the source again just to uninstall. In contrast, uninstalling packages is just click-and-go.
Getting the original source is not as easy as you imply. You have to hunt down the right version; you are not sure what you have installed; you don't know where you got it from; have to re-download everything; etc. Yes, you can overcome all of these issues but it is a huge hassle. People without broadband, like me
(Actually there are other reasons I dont' like sources too. For example, I don't want to waste time compiling--let alone install development libraries. BUT, the uninstall issue ithe #1 reason I use packages).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How can you be certain that visually designed programs will be worse than "linguistically designed*" programs as are done now? Can the poor performance in the past be any indicator? Nope!
:) ). I think future software development will be done in a visual manner. Already, this is happening so it isn't a big revelation.
I actually had a similar vision as Bill Gates (no, I'm not trying to take credit.. just saying it
For example, how many people design GUI elements, like a dialog box, using visual tools? Practically everyone. Hardly anyone does the coding to draw a checkbox, for example, by hand. Of course, this is in its infancy. Therefore, you still need to code the logic behind the GUI. In the future, the code behind the GUI will be visual as well.
Perhaps the best example of how I see software development progressing is UML. Using UML, one designs software using graphical elements and the code is, in theory, automatically (or easily) generated. UML isn't so good right now because it is new. Also, it isn't 100% graphical (because the design environment is still highly geared towards tradional programming eg. you are doing nothing more than showing relationships between classes). But in the future, I expect to see a future version of UML, or something even more advanced become dominant.
(* I call it that because it is somewhat true. Modern day programming is like writing. You use words to carry out a task. There is a lot of similarity between a programming language and a written language).
Having said all that, I don't really agree with Bill Gates about his hardware comment. I am not sure if Bill really means what he says, or if he is just trying to influence the software industry (i.e. since Microsoft is primarily a software company, it is in its interest to downplay hardware). It is difficult for me to see how hardware costs can be almost "free". One of the reasons hardware costs are low now is because the market is a perfect competition. However, my theory is that corporations (or any business) will attempt to monopolize the industry. So the day will come when only a few companies rule each hardware sector. When that happens, I can't see how costs can be low. Already, some industries are being monopolized. The PC video card industry, for instance, is divided up between 2 video card companies (ATI and Nvidia). Around 5 years ago, there were around 6 companies. Video card costs are a huge component of a computer now, whereas they were a small component 5 to 10 years ago. I claim that this is primarily due to the oligopoly that was formed between ATI and Nvidia. The same thing will happen in other sectors. It wouldn't surprise me if, say, there are only 2 or 3 companies that produce memory in 5 years.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think what would happen is that you would use pre-written libraries (or code snippets, if you want to call it that). The task of the designer would be to assemble those libraries. Actually this is exactly what happens right now with software development. You use libraries and their functions to develop something more complex. How many people write applications without using MFC, network libraries, QT, GTK, and other standardized libraries? Hardly any. The only difference would be that things would be graphical now.
PSpice is not that far off as an analogy. You actually DO have Pspice components. For example, a resistor or a transistor is actually a library component. Obviously it is somewhat different because, as you pointed out, PSpice performs calculations based on "initial conditions", rather than implement a function. However, the way it is used will be identical to visual languages. Instead of plopping down resistors, or power sources, or whatever, you may use a library components such as IP connection, FFT (fast fourier transform), JPEG decode, mouse input, or something.
Another example of visual design is UML. In theory, you can design a complex software system in UML, which is quasi-graphical (sort of), and then the code will be automatically (or easily) generated. UML tools are in their infancy so this theory isn't put into practice.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How do you uninstall stuff installed from source, when the original build files aren't available?
Isn't that the #1 reason to use packages instead?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If your idea of an actual candidate is one that wins, then you may be right. Otherwise, anyone that is eligible to receive a vote is a viable candidate in my eyes. I do not denigrate anyone...
As far as liberal views are concerned, I would say that the majority of liberals object to the Iraqi war and the Guantanamo incarcerations. You may be right about the Patriot Act though. Many liberals probably have no idea what it is. As far as conservatives are concerned, only a minority object to Guantanomo Bay and the war. The majority support it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What the author proposes can be benefitial to some degree. However, it is NOT going to solve the famines and the starvation that is common throughout the world.
The production of food has NEVER been the problem. Instead, the problem has always been distribution and inequality. There is more than enough food in the world to feed EVERYONE--this has always been true over in the long term. But the food is not distributed evenly. You are not going to fix the problem by producing more.
For example, the author points out Africa and how it is having problems. Unfortunately it seems to have escaped many people's realization that there are many countries where people starve yet they (net) export food? What does this tell you? This basically means that the people are too poor to be able to afford the food. People spend their labour on the farms yet can't afford to buy the food that they help produce. This is not a rarity; rather, it the norm with poor people.
Regardless of how much food is produced, as long as the inequality problem exists, starvation will exist. It's about time people realized that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Can't see the samples on the website (it seems to be overloaded or something)...
I support making it easier for users to access information. Using CSS will be a definite benefit to Linux help pages. Right now, the TLD docs are very basic (almost like a one big essay with no pictures, weak headings, etc.) If CSS can be used to make it easier to retrieve information, I would welcome it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are right... what I meant to say was that you have a set of axioms (this is root of science) and then everything else follows from that.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is no U in favor, so the spelling has been corrected for you.
;)
Thanks...
As far as Clinton and Kerry are concerned, they are not very liberal. Kerry is almost a conservative; he is a centrist with left-leaning rhetoric. He voted for the Iraqi war, voted for the Patriot Act, and hasn't really said anything about Guantanomo Bay. Most of these so-called "liberals" in USA aren't liberals. During this presidential campaign, I think the only ones that I would consider seriously on the left-wing are Sharpton, Kuicinich, and Howard Dean.
As far as neoconservatism is concerned, I don't see your point. I scanned the Wikipedia entry on it and I don't see anything wrong with it. The term is NOT meaningless, contrary to some. Even wikipedia has a long write-up on it. If the term were meaningless, you couldn't classify Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith, Kristol, et al, as neoconservatives. And you wouldn't have such a long write-up on Wikipedia. The present US government, and the most popular form of conservatism in USA in neoconservatism. I don't see how you can say it doesn't exist.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
So are you saying that when someone is ACCUSED of joining an enemy group that they automatically lose citizenship? I guess you must love giving the government the right to strip citizenship by accusing people of something. Here I thought citizenship cannot be stripped. Maybe I'm living on another planet...
BTW, he hasn't committed any crimes. He hasn't been charged with anything. That's the issue. If he actually did something, it would be easy to prove in front of a court. The US govt is holding him because they don't have anything solid.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. You imply that you care about citizens but then revert to giving the govt power to strip citizenship arbitrarily. You also are in favour of holding people without any charges for committing bogus* "horrific crimes".
(* I say bogus because it hasn't been proven in a court of law. I am not saying he is innocent in the sense that he hasn't done anything; just that he hasn't faced a judge. That to me counts as bogus because the govt can claim anything and people like you would consider it to be true. Good thing we have a legal system that is sometimes independent of the government (unfortunately for people like you I'm sure))
I don't even know if you realize what you are supporting... probably not.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The New Republic CLAIMS to be liberal but it is anything but. And no, I don't have it confused with National Review...
In any case, conservative magazines tend to favor the people having power instead of government having power.
Are you being serious? Is that why conservatives support the Patriot Act, spying on anti-war activists, holding people without trial, etc? Also, how do you explains why conservatives are in favour of banning homosexuality, criminalizing drugs, etc?
Conservatism is conservatism. The "neo" label is used by few, and is pretty much meaningless.
Where have you been for the last few years? Neoconservatism is the most popular form of conservatism in USA right now. Obviously that fact has flew by you.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
New Republic is a neoconservative pro-government magazine. They claim to be liberals but have nothing to do with liberalism. They are heavily influenced by the modern neoconservative movement.
I can't believe that anyone, let alone the Slashdot editors, take their opinions on "tyranny and dictatorship" seriously. New Republic wouldn't even know what democracy was even if it hit them on their head...
If anyone wants to know the true impact of internet on dictatorship, they should go and ask someone who knows what's going on. This certainly doesn't include New Republic...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Wow... it's amazing what type of people you meet on Slashdot. Since there are so many people reading, you run into all sorts of characters. I would have never thought anyone that was involved in gold, let alone from Alaska, would be reading my message :)
How do you know what sort of gold to invest in? For instance, are the American Eagles, Canadian Maple Leafs and Swiss 'whatever' standardized in some manner? I'm basically thinking of bars or boullions (or whatever they are called) and not coins. I was reading somewhere that coins are not a good investment (at least for me) because their value depends on other things (like how collectible it is, how rare, etc). So bars/boullions/whatever is what I'm thinking of. Are there standardized bars/whatever? Do you know of them? If someone bought a bar/whatever, would others recognize it easily (like currency)? Or does each gold company print its own bars?
Also, you might be biased, but what are the advantages of gold vs silver?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know much about religions and this applies to Christianity too. Perhaps someone else can jump in and provide some solid examples. Until someone else does so, I'll just give my thoughts (which admittedly is based more on popular views on Christianity than anything.)
To start off, let me attack what you put in brackets:
Given that you admit that Churches, or more precisely priests, "screw up" what do you follow? How does one determine what is right and wrong? Is the present view of homosexuality by churches (i.e. homosexuality is bad and should not be permitted in society) correct? Or how about when the Christian churches supported Nazism? Or how about the Christian fundamentalists in USA claiming that Islam is evil and should be abolished? I mean, where do you draw the line?
Furthermore, if the majority of the followers of a particular religion accept some activity at a point in time (even though it is clearly immoral), is that reflective of religion or not? Is it wrong for an atheist to accurately say that the religion (or the following of that particular God) is wrong? If you are looking at Christianity I suppose the Crusades and the burning of "witches" come to mind. How do you know that you, as a follower of a particular religion, is not wrong just like billions before you were?
Now on to the main point...
Since I'm not a Christian, this would be tough but let me try. Does your religion not say that God created humans? I'm talking about the Adam and Eve story. Aren't humans supposed to be some "special" beings that were created by God? Given that, how do you explain that we are almost identical to other animals on earth? Our physical characteristics are similar, our behaviour is identical, and so on. How do you reconcile this? Are humans "special" as religion says, or are they just animals are science says? Science is more right here...
Another example would be Noah's Ark. Doesn't Christianity say that Noah rounded up all the animals and went to a ship? Does this make any (rational) sense at all? Can any human really round up all the animals? Right now, with more advanced technology, we still can't. In fact, we still discover new species every year. And you are telling me that Noah managed to round up every animal? Also this event supposedly happened a few thousand years ago. Do you seriously believe that everythign was wiped out a few thousand years ago? Do you seriously believe that Noah even had contact with people in (Eastern) Asia or North and South America? Are you telling me that all these people were killed?
How old is the earth? Is it a few thousand as Christianity claims? How do you explain the dinosaurs? How do you explain the fact that there are other things (namely stars) that are older than what Christianity claims is the age of the universe? Or do you think the stars are figment of our imagination?
Lastly, do you still believe the earth is at the center of universe (as Christianity believed until the 1990's*)? Given that Christianity, and all its leading scholars and theists, were wrong at that time, can you honestly believe anything now?
Why are you even a Christian? Is it just because your parents were? What if I tell you that kings and queens forced people to follow their religion? How can you be sure that you are right in anything?
(* At least that's when the Catholic Church officially said that Galileo was right.)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
My definition of rational does not deviate from a dictionary definition. Dictionaries basically say that rational is following reason. That's what it means to me too, although I like to think of it as being logic.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I am not familiar with the axiom of chioce in set theory. Can you summarize it for me? Thanks.
Whether something is intuitive or not is irrelevant. A lot of science is counter-intuitive but that doesn't mean anything. A good example is gravity. Most people would claim that gravity acts more strongly on a heavy object than a light one. Most people say that a one ton car, for example, will fall more quickly to the earth than a 100kg rock. Yet that is not true. Both will hit the ground at the same time (in theory, with low air resistance). What is intuitive is completely wrong. So whether something is intuitive or not makes little difference to reality. Religious people, and non-scientific people, base their lives on intuition but it can be wrong.
Back to your point... The difference between science and religion is that one follows logic while the other follow faith. That is why religion is irrational. Most of what religion says has to be taken at face value--in faith. You cannot question the principles. The details depend on religion so it's kind of hard to argue without going into specifics. But I guess one common principle is praying. Most religions claim that you must pray to some God. You just cannot rationalize this. You must simply follow the scripture (or some verbal deeds of the priest.) What is happening is that you are following faith and not logic.
You cannot prove or show in some logical manner that praying, for example, means anything. Does God reward those that pray? Not really. You can perform scientific studies to refute this, but you can also look at the terrible lives led by many religious people, who happen to be extremely poor and struggling.
So there you have it... just to recap, science follows logic. The axioms follow one from another. Relgion, in contrast, does not. You just take what the scripture or some priest says as truth. For example, a religious person cannot question why a priest/cleric must always be male*. You must simply take it on faith that the priest is a male and if you are female, well, oh well.
(* Pretty much true for all religions that I know of.)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This question is so idiotic that I'm surprised that it even made the front page. I'm not sure what basis the author is using to ask this question. Is it supposed to be philosophical? If not, why not ask what the world would be without IBM? IBM has had bigger impact on the world (including several immoral actions, such as funding Nazi Germany.) Or how about a world without Intel?
I fail to see the point of asking this question, unless the author is truly being philosophical, which I doubt.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Name a religion with rational God...
Sivaram Velauthapillai