well, i'm American, and to continue my pummeled-pile-of-horse-flesh analogy...
I would say that the US is an interesting case where there is a relative amount of order, and thus freedom on the road to go a decent speed, but there is a pervasive culture that releases the common American from responsiblity for his/her actions. Because of this childlike interaction with the surrounding environment, Americans are stiffly patrolled despite being more than capable of self-regulation, at around 70 mph. And due to the rare oppurtunity for self-determination, when confronted with 'no speed limit', many Americans thus conclude they should go as fast as possible, rather than cruising at a speed that accurately matches the conditions.
Thus when someone does do something irresponsible and injures themself, a pack of ravenous injury lawyers swarm and begin to investigate to see if there is anyway to blame this person's irresponsible actions on someone else (preferrably with deep pockets).
Its hard to seperate government regulation and a free country.
With less regulation it is more difficult to maintain an orderly society , which consequently puts limits on how much an individual can do because of the massive effort that is needed just to deal with the entropy of daily life.
A heavily regulated society will provide a baseline of order so that citizens can ignore the basics of day to day life, and concentrate on more complex things. But too much regulation makes a very rapid switch from freedom to oppression.
An analogy: Given a roadway: without order it would be impossible to go fast, as you would not be able to interpret where people would go. Conversly, with a very orderly system you can make assumptions that people will stop at stop signs, stay in their lanes, and generally follow the traffic patterns. For concrete examples (from my own experience) look at the difference between the Autobahn in Germany, where going 145mph is a common occurence (albeit pushing the limit), as opposed to going 70mph on an Indian highway, which is tempting fate as you dodge ox-carts, absent minded cows (Holy Cow!), flipped-over trucks, and people driving on the wrong side of the road because their lane was blocked by one of the above.
to be more exact, a computer is incapable of understanding 'Context' as a human does, and the average layman or VB programmer is unable to frame a logical set of instructions without Assuming the computer understands context.
Which, is the techincal version of your statement: "people can't cope with computers doing exactly what they tell it to [when they don't realize that they were actually implying a whole host of things, but unfortunately these were stuffed into the context of a carbon-based life form living on the 3rd planet.. etc]"
But I think this assumption of 'authoritative source' betrays the antiquated conception of information and its accuracy that is finally being retired. Information is never authoratative; it is pure, and then digested. Pure information has no conclusion drawn from it; it only represents a recording of something natural (be that a statistic of a study, or an eye-witness account of an event). Formerly, some collection of people would compose and interpret this information, and thus produce a source that was validated by their reputation. Wikipedia, however, is a much closer representation of the true dynamism of information, complete with an audit log to expose this.
And perhaps the uncertainty of accuracy in a Wikipedia article holds a hidden benefit: it causes the reader not to just accept whats presented as the 'authoritative description', but rather presents an introduction, whereupon the reader can explore, read primary sources, and develop their own conclusions.
damn, and I had already spent a moderation point on this discussion.. but I knew that I was gonna respond to one of these...
But the designer of the project is stunningly unaware of the security problems the design presents.
Specifically, the proposal talks about "direct connections" between the source and destination. This means that the file is trackable, and therefore the owner is liable. Furthermore in this 'trusted' system with buddies of buddies of buddies.. it only takes one corrupted buddy to allow an undesired agent in. And lord knows how corruptible humans are..
There are redesigns that could maybe re-inforce the idea, which fundamentally isn't bad. Packets should be routed through the buddy system, so you are only aware of the connections to your nearest buddies. The problem here is that this increases the level of traffic significantly.
In truth, I think this whole 'free music' argument is on thin ground to begin with. Sure, I don't like the big record companies.. but that doesn't mean that you should distribute their copyrighted work, let alone justify your distribution as some sort of right. I think filesharing is a great thing, and like other comments, I lament bittorrent's co-option by those who seek to violate copyrights. It seems to me that the only way to lower software prices, which without doubt are too high, is to apply market pressure by using lower cost software, such as open source software. The only time software prices will change is if the market refuses to support them. Until then, petty theft of software, no matter how questionable its price, is still petty theft.
but seriously, understanding popular software (which is Not the same as understanding computers!) involves thinking in the same way as the majority of developers. Most of us in the technical field, and people who grew up in the 90s and later, understand certain patterns of developer thought based on experience. It is akin to a mechanic able to look at a car he has never worked on, and figure out what is what because most autmechanics were taught to build things the same way. Similarily, put an average mechanic in front of a hybrid, and he might be confused, but not intimidated due to his vast experience with 4 wheeled vehicles; the same way a decent IT pro could first experience a different platform and know how to approach it.
I like what my friend says: Fox News is fair and balanced.. it presents the conservative views i agree with, and the conservative views i don't agree with
kazaa loading.....
eDonkey loading...
bitTorrent whirring...
cds ripping...
dvds burning...
firefox running... oh wait, a couple months too early to call that illegal
Re:Hopefully not as terrible as the first
on
Halo 2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I don't know why people thing mouse/keyboard is gods gift to gaming
Not only is your rambling incoherent, but you don't even attribute your response to what I said.
I identified what I consider to be a temporary state in humanity: that where the nation-state (i.e. "Germany", "India", "Russia") existed; an delimitation of society that developed as we reached a critical point in communications & economy where city-to-city trade was insufficient, yet global trade was not yet viable a complete model.
I then referred to the collapse of this nation-state organization because a). trade now exists in the global economy, b). communications allow communities to develop irrespective of proximity, but rather by interest.
This is, in my estimation, leading to a new organization of society, one where people associate by a). Proximity, those who are geographically close to them (i.e. in the same city), and b). Interest, those who share the same interests, like a technical forum, or/.
Upon stating my projection of this new potential future, I felt compelled to remark that it is a positive, for it may be able to preserve, or re-emphasize regional cultural differences
"Given the choice between being a member state of some super world government, or having an all out nuclear war, I might actually prefer the latter to thin the human herd out rather than be subjugated to some pan-world government that has some french ass trying to tell me how to live."
How can You denounce me for 'trashing regional values', as you insult the millions who consider themself french, and state a preference for obliteration. Your inability to understand what I was saying may have been due to my using hyper-academic rhetoric (in a tongue-in-cheek reply to the parent), or maybe it has to do with the fact that you noticed the word 'colonial' and went apeshit without the 'Reason' that I am sure you purport to worship. It is dim-witted, reactionary nitwits who are just grasping for someone to denounce as 'imperialist' and 'anti-freedom' like you who diminish those who actually approach free-state policies with rationality and level-headedness.
When the internet and the world wide web emerged, such boundaries were rendered virtually meaningless.
...yet these borders were arbitrary to begin with; the frustrating part of the linked article is its author limited his scope to human history on the scale of a few centuries. The assignment of boundaries to territories by humans (and every other species) based upon social organization is nothing new, but it is a pretense that these boundaries are anything but highly dynamic and completely dependant on the fluctuations of population and resources.
Human populations are more intuitively organized around neighborhoods, and the conglomeration of neighborhoods into city states. The idea of the nation state was only developed as communications and industry developed to the point where the range of economy extended well beyond a city-state and its neighbors (the nation not to be confused with an empire, as an empire has a far less prominent role in regional governance). However now that communications have recently bridged that adolescent stage, and are rapidly extending to the endpoint, where everyone has accessible instantaneous access to everyone else all the time and everywhere, there is an awakening to the continuity of society.
This should be a completely natural step, as one is far more connected to those who live within walking distance; and as disconnected from people 150 miles away as people 5,000 miles away, because they rarely interact on the day to day basis. The two aspects of association, interest and proximity, are being re-aligned as the communications landscape changes. Now, the day to day habits of a man in China effect a woman in South Africa (as does the inaction of a woman in the USA effect the environment of a child in Iraq). The economical barrier between them was originally broken at the birth of the Colonial era of Europe, and later the communications barrier was significantly reduced, but now all barriers have been shattered and metaphorically the butterfly's wings are potent indeed.
This new panhuman dynamic is likely to be troublesome as it is first established (i.e. the culture/economic clashes that drive modern conflict), and continually opposed by those who have become comfortable holding the reigns of a nation-state, but ultimately the stability and intuitive comfort of a more global, decentralized model will win. And this is heartening. Perhaps, ultimately, this will bring about a re-vitalizatoin of regional culture nuance..
not as awkward as having a batman style toolbelt of cellphone sized accesories... I open my bag and i see my etrex, elph, cellphone, palm, and pocket knife rattling around, and i just day dream of when i will get all that functionality in one...no matter how clunky it is at first, these articles always excite me...
ok, so the pocketknife doesn't need to be integrated (in fact its much more fun when its not >:) but, u get the idea
The European Union is managing its economy astronomically better than the US right now: look at the Euro vs the Dollar
The rest of the world has experienced Terrorism for centuries, and realizes (with the exception of Israel, another very young country) that to prevent terrorism, one does not invade, and suppress the source country
Spain, Russia... need I go on? How arrogant of you to think the US is exclusive in its suffering from Al Qaeda
Nobody ever said the rest of the world was setting an example.. the only one who has claimed to set an example post WW2, is the USA. And look how good of an example we set
All this election has proven, is that Americans are as easily persuaded by false rhetoric as any others. I am ashamed of my country, and embarassed at the lack of foresight and worldliness over half of my countrymen have expressed. To the world: Sorry.
A 'real' democracy would have a direct correlation between the people affected by the policies of government, and that government. In the last century, the effect of nations globally has fundamentally changed this distinction, as every country has such a profound impact on every other. Thus I see it hard to start talking about the 'just' democracy where all are able to vote, when (in relation to the world), the current US election even with everyone participating, is still an elite deciding policy for all.
Switzerland (i am a Swiss citizen as well as an American), is an admirable example, as close to my ideal as possible. But it is too easy to view it in isolation, without the wealth that has sustained it from the world beyond its borders.
Regardless, I must say I am driven mostly by cyncism here, one that can only be healed by a kerry turnout tonight...
*chortle* Thankfully we do not live in a real democracy! The authors of the constitution were adept enough to structure our government such that it is very difficult to make permanent changes, and that the people have an influence on actual policy via representative. This ensure a buffer between public opinion and actual policy that is vital, especially when the very clever techniques of modern media are factored in. I mean, just imagine if it was trivial to amend the constitution.. do you think it would be the Patriot Act?? Thankfully our system was inherently able to contain that manifestation of the post 9/11 hysteria.
In fact, the basic 'representative' nature of the United States is essentially a smoothing function of the often radically swinging public opinion. I mean, look at the problems we encounter with the jury system, where any clever lawyer can easily convince a jury of 'citizens' to completly misinterpret the law. Elitism, in the sense of a buffer between policy and the public, are essential in any culturally/economically heterogeneous society.
Also amusing is the irony of your stating "the whole point of democracy is that everybody is equal and all get the opportunity to vote", and then "The whole world is watching....".. because in fact the policies of the United States effect the entire world in a very major way. I think there is a very strong case to be made that the restriction of US presidential elections to only American citizens in fact disenfranchises most of humanity, who are (some in the most tragic way: war) very much effected by American policy.
sure, but my hope is that in 1-2 years as these technologies move to mainstream, the 150 dollar range inkjet will be significantly better, and capable of making good pcbs.
Because I think this could be another significant price reduction for people who want to try their hand at manufacturing hardware/embedded devices in their garage.. buy a 150 dollar inkjet, some special paper and conductive/insulator ink, and print up all your designs.
and the less barrier there is to entry in an industry, the more the competition, and the faster/better the growth.
And further more, you are so quick to denounce my concerns of adequate stability as being 'racist' and 'nationalist'. That is a very shallow estimation of a far more complex situation. I come from a Western culture, and thus have Western values. I consider those who are not from my culture and do not share my values to be a threat.
Unfortunately, as the world collides and moves to a unification of culture (a byproduct of global communications and trade.. one that has facilitated our little cross cultural dialog here), a common set of values must be arbitrated in order for this merge to continue. Al Qaeda (as well as Bush) seek to halt this merger by not renouncing their more extreme cultural beliefs. I, however, see a midpoint, that is still very much within what I consider to be Western Culture, one of democracy, equal rights, and a market-based economy (which, despite much proganda to the contrary, are not mutually exclusive, yet are always treading a delicate balance). Thus I feel justified in making a value-based judgement regarding the danger of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of Al Qaeda. This does not, by any means, abdicate the responsibility of the United States, or her Allies, as nuclear armed countries. And by no means do I say any 'race' (a fictitious construct, no more precise than the arbitrary borders we call nations) is more qualified to control nuclear weapons, because all "races" have destructive tendencies.
Unfortunately there is a contradiction, should I endorse a "consensus of humanity" approach to control of nuclear weaponry, as Consensus and Democracy are not universal values. This forces me to endorse Western Democracy, whether it is executed by people of Asian, Native American, African, European, or Middle Eastern descent, because this is the value I was indoctrinated as being optimal.
Unfortunately, I doubt you can understand this post, nor will any other curious slashdotter stumble upon this outdated thread.. so I relinquish this discussion to the vast reaches of cyberspace..
As I said, you don't understand English well enough to make such a judgment.
By "most protective organization in the World", I am highlighting the US Army's extremely tight security over their equipment and technology. By this I mean that it is much harder to steal a nuclear bomb from the US Army than anyone else.
nationlist?
racist?
If you are having so much trouble posting in English (or translating your posts), how can you possibly detect the nuance of a "nationalist or racist shade" to my comment???
I understand you weren't attacking me, that is why i got so frustrated, because its so important to understand and acknowledge there is a grain of truth to the fears held by the majority. And by understanding this, we can provide clear explanations as to how we can compensate.
And your dismissal of the nuclear proliferation problem, I am sad to say, is very short-sighted and focused. Think of it this way: Sure global communications and the internet are a fantastic thing for the vast majority of people, but they are also vital in the coordination and orchaestration of terrorist attacks. The proliferation of easy, essentially anonymous due to scale, communications has encouraged and enhanced the once far more controllable anti-Western terrorist cells. Similarily, if nuclear power, or more specifically the technology, engineering, and materials used to facilitate nuclear power become as accessible as conventional power, then those who earlier would have had to wade through the security clearances, tight base security, and big tough marines with guns before getting near nuclear technology will now be that much closer. We won't be able to ensure only rational hands touch such a powerful piece of knowledge. And that is scary.
As I said I am all for nuclear power; as I realize the statistics are in favor of it over other sources of energy. In my parent post my aim was to prevent people, such as yourself, from stubbornly denouncing the counter-arguments (and their derived fears) against nuclear power, as you did.
Now, just to be patronizing and make sure you understand I will repeat: I am for nuclear power, because statistically it is Safer, and I think that most uses of nuclear power will not lead to proliferation.
HOWEVER, the fears mentioned are not completly illegitamite, and it is essential we understand them to convice people otherwise.
Sure, coal power is far more deadly to society as a whole, but people (think they) understand how coal works and how it kills people (suffocation, burning, crushing, carcinogens). People aren't as familiar with nuclear power, and the idea that so little can be so powerful gives them the willies.
The second point I find far more persuasive against nuclear power. If nuclear power is used in more industries, and more often, then it is invariably exposed (both in terms of concepts and engineering, and raw materials) to more people. The more people it is exposed too, the less secure it is and more possible (statistically!) that one of those people might not be worthy of entrusting with such powerful concepts/materials. Whether or not the nuclear power will be sent to Mars, silently glide 300m below the water off the Siberian coastline, or power an office building, the more widespread it is, the greater the potential that someone who wants to abuse it will get access.
Since you so drastically misunderstood my post, I will yet again, since I am still frustrated, emphasize that I am For nuclear power and I Agree with the rational, and obvious conculsions you felt necessary to post but I understand that others are not aware of this, and you stubbornly denouncing them as ignorant and blasting out facts will Not quell their fears. You must Understand those fears, especially the legitimate points of those fears, and then maybe you won't copy and paste your canned "Now sit and think for a moment which technology is more dangerous" response, which is part of the reason We pro-nuclear power people never get anywhere. phew!
First off, I am totally in support of nuclear power
That being said, to dismiss the fear as ridiculous is unfortunately as narrow minded and confined a view as the fear itself.
Quite simply: People (even the smart ones) are nervous about nuclear power because of two major reasons
The magnitude of damage when something goes wrong (ignoring the statistical chances, if Murphy's law doesn't alert this to you, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island should)
The unwanted side effect of wide spread use of nuclear power: nuclear proliferation. Simply said, nuclear power is the technique of harnessing the massive power of atomic energy. Should many people know how to do this, and the materials be widely available, its that much easer for a small group (i.e. osama) to have a big impact. As the recent news that yet more weapons were stolen from the most protective organization in the world (US Army), we should once again accept that if these materials are made in high quantity and distributed widely, someone who shouldn't, will get their hands on it.
Nuclear power has so much potential to assist humanity, but we need to understand the legitimate fears before we can approach those who are afraid of its equally great potential to destroy humanity, and try to convince them to look to the future rather than to the past.
Slashdot Mirror
well, i'm American, and to continue my pummeled-pile-of-horse-flesh analogy...
I would say that the US is an interesting case where there is a relative amount of order, and thus freedom on the road to go a decent speed, but there is a pervasive culture that releases the common American from responsiblity for his/her actions. Because of this childlike interaction with the surrounding environment, Americans are stiffly patrolled despite being more than capable of self-regulation, at around 70 mph. And due to the rare oppurtunity for self-determination, when confronted with 'no speed limit', many Americans thus conclude they should go as fast as possible, rather than cruising at a speed that accurately matches the conditions.
Thus when someone does do something irresponsible and injures themself, a pack of ravenous injury lawyers swarm and begin to investigate to see if there is anyway to blame this person's irresponsible actions on someone else (preferrably with deep pockets).
Its hard to seperate government regulation and a free country.
With less regulation it is more difficult to maintain an orderly society , which consequently puts limits on how much an individual can do because of the massive effort that is needed just to deal with the entropy of daily life.
A heavily regulated society will provide a baseline of order so that citizens can ignore the basics of day to day life, and concentrate on more complex things. But too much regulation makes a very rapid switch from freedom to oppression.
An analogy: Given a roadway: without order it would be impossible to go fast, as you would not be able to interpret where people would go. Conversly, with a very orderly system you can make assumptions that people will stop at stop signs, stay in their lanes, and generally follow the traffic patterns. For concrete examples (from my own experience) look at the difference between the Autobahn in Germany, where going 145mph is a common occurence (albeit pushing the limit), as opposed to going 70mph on an Indian highway, which is tempting fate as you dodge ox-carts, absent minded cows (Holy Cow!), flipped-over trucks, and people driving on the wrong side of the road because their lane was blocked by one of the above.
to be more exact, a computer is incapable of understanding 'Context' as a human does, and the average layman or VB programmer is unable to frame a logical set of instructions without Assuming the computer understands context.
Which, is the techincal version of your statement: "people can't cope with computers doing exactly what they tell it to [when they don't realize that they were actually implying a whole host of things, but unfortunately these were stuffed into the context of a carbon-based life form living on the 3rd planet.. etc]"
But I think this assumption of 'authoritative source' betrays the antiquated conception of information and its accuracy that is finally being retired. Information is never authoratative; it is pure, and then digested. Pure information has no conclusion drawn from it; it only represents a recording of something natural (be that a statistic of a study, or an eye-witness account of an event). Formerly, some collection of people would compose and interpret this information, and thus produce a source that was validated by their reputation. Wikipedia, however, is a much closer representation of the true dynamism of information, complete with an audit log to expose this.
And perhaps the uncertainty of accuracy in a Wikipedia article holds a hidden benefit: it causes the reader not to just accept whats presented as the 'authoritative description', but rather presents an introduction, whereupon the reader can explore, read primary sources, and develop their own conclusions.
damn, and I had already spent a moderation point on this discussion.. but I knew that I was gonna respond to one of theseBut the designer of the project is stunningly unaware of the security problems the design presents.
Specifically, the proposal talks about "direct connections" between the source and destination. This means that the file is trackable, and therefore the owner is liable. Furthermore in this 'trusted' system with buddies of buddies of buddies.. it only takes one corrupted buddy to allow an undesired agent in. And lord knows how corruptible humans are..
There are redesigns that could maybe re-inforce the idea, which fundamentally isn't bad. Packets should be routed through the buddy system, so you are only aware of the connections to your nearest buddies. The problem here is that this increases the level of traffic significantly.
In truth, I think this whole 'free music' argument is on thin ground to begin with. Sure, I don't like the big record companies.. but that doesn't mean that you should distribute their copyrighted work, let alone justify your distribution as some sort of right. I think filesharing is a great thing, and like other comments, I lament bittorrent's co-option by those who seek to violate copyrights. It seems to me that the only way to lower software prices, which without doubt are too high, is to apply market pressure by using lower cost software, such as open source software. The only time software prices will change is if the market refuses to support them. Until then, petty theft of software, no matter how questionable its price, is still petty theft.
fun toys that use gyroscopes...
hmmm how about a YOYO
*evil grin*.. maybe they should!
but seriously, understanding popular software (which is Not the same as understanding computers!) involves thinking in the same way as the majority of developers. Most of us in the technical field, and people who grew up in the 90s and later, understand certain patterns of developer thought based on experience. It is akin to a mechanic able to look at a car he has never worked on, and figure out what is what because most autmechanics were taught to build things the same way. Similarily, put an average mechanic in front of a hybrid, and he might be confused, but not intimidated due to his vast experience with 4 wheeled vehicles; the same way a decent IT pro could first experience a different platform and know how to approach it.
Fox News had credibility?
I like what my friend says: Fox News is fair and balanced .. it presents the conservative views i agree with, and the conservative views i don't agree with
kazaa loading.....
eDonkey loading...
bitTorrent whirring...
cds ripping...
dvds burning...
firefox running... oh wait, a couple months too early to call that illegal
I don't know why people thing mouse/keyboard is gods gift to gaming
you must suck, n00b
Not only is your rambling incoherent, but you don't even attribute your response to what I said.
"Given the choice between being a member state of some super world government, or having an all out nuclear war, I might actually prefer the latter to thin the human herd out rather than be subjugated to some pan-world government that has some french ass trying to tell me how to live."
How can You denounce me for 'trashing regional values', as you insult the millions who consider themself french, and state a preference for obliteration. Your inability to understand what I was saying may have been due to my using hyper-academic rhetoric (in a tongue-in-cheek reply to the parent), or maybe it has to do with the fact that you noticed the word 'colonial' and went apeshit without the 'Reason' that I am sure you purport to worship. It is dim-witted, reactionary nitwits who are just grasping for someone to denounce as 'imperialist' and 'anti-freedom' like you who diminish those who actually approach free-state policies with rationality and level-headedness.
When the internet and the world wide web emerged, such boundaries were rendered virtually meaningless.
...yet these borders were arbitrary to begin with; the frustrating part of the linked article is its author limited his scope to human history on the scale of a few centuries. The assignment of boundaries to territories by humans (and every other species) based upon social organization is nothing new, but it is a pretense that these boundaries are anything but highly dynamic and completely dependant on the fluctuations of population and resources.
Human populations are more intuitively organized around neighborhoods, and the conglomeration of neighborhoods into city states. The idea of the nation state was only developed as communications and industry developed to the point where the range of economy extended well beyond a city-state and its neighbors (the nation not to be confused with an empire, as an empire has a far less prominent role in regional governance). However now that communications have recently bridged that adolescent stage, and are rapidly extending to the endpoint, where everyone has accessible instantaneous access to everyone else all the time and everywhere, there is an awakening to the continuity of society.
This should be a completely natural step, as one is far more connected to those who live within walking distance; and as disconnected from people 150 miles away as people 5,000 miles away, because they rarely interact on the day to day basis. The two aspects of association, interest and proximity, are being re-aligned as the communications landscape changes. Now, the day to day habits of a man in China effect a woman in South Africa (as does the inaction of a woman in the USA effect the environment of a child in Iraq). The economical barrier between them was originally broken at the birth of the Colonial era of Europe, and later the communications barrier was significantly reduced, but now all barriers have been shattered and metaphorically the butterfly's wings are potent indeed.
This new panhuman dynamic is likely to be troublesome as it is first established (i.e. the culture/economic clashes that drive modern conflict), and continually opposed by those who have become comfortable holding the reigns of a nation-state, but ultimately the stability and intuitive comfort of a more global, decentralized model will win. And this is heartening. Perhaps, ultimately, this will bring about a re-vitalizatoin of regional culture nuance..
not as awkward as having a batman style toolbelt of cellphone sized accesories... I open my bag and i see my etrex, elph, cellphone, palm, and pocket knife rattling around, and i just day dream of when i will get all that functionality in one...no matter how clunky it is at first, these articles always excite me...
ok, so the pocketknife doesn't need to be integrated (in fact its much more fun when its not >:) but, u get the idea
we also elect retards
All this election has proven, is that Americans are as easily persuaded by false rhetoric as any others. I am ashamed of my country, and embarassed at the lack of foresight and worldliness over half of my countrymen have expressed. To the world: Sorry.
- A 'real' democracy would have a direct correlation between the people affected by the policies of government, and that government. In the last century, the effect of nations globally has fundamentally changed this distinction, as every country has such a profound impact on every other. Thus I see it hard to start talking about the 'just' democracy where all are able to vote, when (in relation to the world), the current US election even with everyone participating, is still an elite deciding policy for all.
- Switzerland (i am a Swiss citizen as well as an American), is an admirable example, as close to my ideal as possible. But it is too easy to view it in isolation, without the wealth that has sustained it from the world beyond its borders.
Regardless, I must say I am driven mostly by cyncism here, one that can only be healed by a kerry turnout tonight...*chortle* Thankfully we do not live in a real democracy! The authors of the constitution were adept enough to structure our government such that it is very difficult to make permanent changes, and that the people have an influence on actual policy via representative. This ensure a buffer between public opinion and actual policy that is vital, especially when the very clever techniques of modern media are factored in. I mean, just imagine if it was trivial to amend the constitution.. do you think it would be the Patriot Act?? Thankfully our system was inherently able to contain that manifestation of the post 9/11 hysteria.
In fact, the basic 'representative' nature of the United States is essentially a smoothing function of the often radically swinging public opinion. I mean, look at the problems we encounter with the jury system, where any clever lawyer can easily convince a jury of 'citizens' to completly misinterpret the law. Elitism, in the sense of a buffer between policy and the public, are essential in any culturally/economically heterogeneous society.
Also amusing is the irony of your stating "the whole point of democracy is that everybody is equal and all get the opportunity to vote", and then "The whole world is watching....".. because in fact the policies of the United States effect the entire world in a very major way. I think there is a very strong case to be made that the restriction of US presidential elections to only American citizens in fact disenfranchises most of humanity, who are (some in the most tragic way: war) very much effected by American policy.
sure, but my hope is that in 1-2 years as these technologies move to mainstream, the 150 dollar range inkjet will be significantly better, and capable of making good pcbs.
Because I think this could be another significant price reduction for people who want to try their hand at manufacturing hardware/embedded devices in their garage.. buy a 150 dollar inkjet, some special paper and conductive/insulator ink, and print up all your designs.
and the less barrier there is to entry in an industry, the more the competition, and the faster/better the growth.
And further more, you are so quick to denounce my concerns of adequate stability as being 'racist' and 'nationalist'. That is a very shallow estimation of a far more complex situation. I come from a Western culture, and thus have Western values. I consider those who are not from my culture and do not share my values to be a threat.
Unfortunately, as the world collides and moves to a unification of culture (a byproduct of global communications and trade.. one that has facilitated our little cross cultural dialog here), a common set of values must be arbitrated in order for this merge to continue. Al Qaeda (as well as Bush) seek to halt this merger by not renouncing their more extreme cultural beliefs. I, however, see a midpoint, that is still very much within what I consider to be Western Culture, one of democracy, equal rights, and a market-based economy (which, despite much proganda to the contrary, are not mutually exclusive, yet are always treading a delicate balance). Thus I feel justified in making a value-based judgement regarding the danger of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of Al Qaeda. This does not, by any means, abdicate the responsibility of the United States, or her Allies, as nuclear armed countries. And by no means do I say any 'race' (a fictitious construct, no more precise than the arbitrary borders we call nations) is more qualified to control nuclear weapons, because all "races" have destructive tendencies.
Unfortunately there is a contradiction, should I endorse a "consensus of humanity" approach to control of nuclear weaponry, as Consensus and Democracy are not universal values. This forces me to endorse Western Democracy, whether it is executed by people of Asian, Native American, African, European, or Middle Eastern descent, because this is the value I was indoctrinated as being optimal.
Unfortunately, I doubt you can understand this post, nor will any other curious slashdotter stumble upon this outdated thread.. so I relinquish this discussion to the vast reaches of cyberspace..
As I said, you don't understand English well enough to make such a judgment.
By "most protective organization in the World", I am highlighting the US Army's extremely tight security over their equipment and technology. By this I mean that it is much harder to steal a nuclear bomb from the US Army than anyone else.
nationlist?
racist?
If you are having so much trouble posting in English (or translating your posts), how can you possibly detect the nuance of a "nationalist or racist shade" to my comment???
I understand you weren't attacking me, that is why i got so frustrated, because its so important to understand and acknowledge there is a grain of truth to the fears held by the majority. And by understanding this, we can provide clear explanations as to how we can compensate.
And your dismissal of the nuclear proliferation problem, I am sad to say, is very short-sighted and focused. Think of it this way: Sure global communications and the internet are a fantastic thing for the vast majority of people, but they are also vital in the coordination and orchaestration of terrorist attacks. The proliferation of easy, essentially anonymous due to scale, communications has encouraged and enhanced the once far more controllable anti-Western terrorist cells. Similarily, if nuclear power, or more specifically the technology, engineering, and materials used to facilitate nuclear power become as accessible as conventional power, then those who earlier would have had to wade through the security clearances, tight base security, and big tough marines with guns before getting near nuclear technology will now be that much closer. We won't be able to ensure only rational hands touch such a powerful piece of knowledge. And that is scary.As I said I am all for nuclear power; as I realize the statistics are in favor of it over other sources of energy. In my parent post my aim was to prevent people, such as yourself, from stubbornly denouncing the counter-arguments (and their derived fears) against nuclear power, as you did.
Now, just to be patronizing and make sure you understand I will repeat: I am for nuclear power, because statistically it is Safer, and I think that most uses of nuclear power will not lead to proliferation.
HOWEVER, the fears mentioned are not completly illegitamite, and it is essential we understand them to convice people otherwise.
Sure, coal power is far more deadly to society as a whole, but people (think they) understand how coal works and how it kills people (suffocation, burning, crushing, carcinogens). People aren't as familiar with nuclear power, and the idea that so little can be so powerful gives them the willies.
The second point I find far more persuasive against nuclear power. If nuclear power is used in more industries, and more often, then it is invariably exposed (both in terms of concepts and engineering, and raw materials) to more people. The more people it is exposed too, the less secure it is and more possible (statistically!) that one of those people might not be worthy of entrusting with such powerful concepts/materials. Whether or not the nuclear power will be sent to Mars, silently glide 300m below the water off the Siberian coastline, or power an office building, the more widespread it is, the greater the potential that someone who wants to abuse it will get access.
Since you so drastically misunderstood my post, I will yet again, since I am still frustrated, emphasize that I am For nuclear power and I Agree with the rational, and obvious conculsions you felt necessary to post but I understand that others are not aware of this, and you stubbornly denouncing them as ignorant and blasting out facts will Not quell their fears. You must Understand those fears, especially the legitimate points of those fears, and then maybe you won't copy and paste your canned "Now sit and think for a moment which technology is more dangerous" response, which is part of the reason We pro-nuclear power people never get anywhere. phew!
That being said, to dismiss the fear as ridiculous is unfortunately as narrow minded and confined a view as the fear itself.
Quite simply: People (even the smart ones) are nervous about nuclear power because of two major reasons
Nuclear power has so much potential to assist humanity, but we need to understand the legitimate fears before we can approach those who are afraid of its equally great potential to destroy humanity, and try to convince them to look to the future rather than to the past.