I'm certainly not an expert on the average household income in third world countries, but isn't it normal for people there to be bringing home about $20 a month?
My brother's wife is Nepali (-ee?). I hear there's both sides of the coin (relatively speaking). There's a *lot* of poverty as well as a lot of Land Rovers.
There seems to be a lot of posts about the "third world" as a group. One small but insurmountable problem is that they aren't a homogeneous group at.
While I agree that most of the third world countries recently freed from colonial rule are working really hard to make material gains, this is not universally true.
May cultures simply don't value a large bank account the way us westerners do; or their culture has ways of looking at the world that preclude the U.S. "protestant work ethic." Some instances that come to mind are Nepal and some Pacific Islanders.
Nepal has not been colonialized (as a matter of fact, they stopped the British army in their tracks and were given their own country a brief time later by treaty. This was also the start of Gurkha employment my the UK...), but they are still a third world country (second poorest). I believe this is due to a combination of a little goverment and a lot culture. Although the goverment is rather opressive on some topics (religion), the main reason for Nepal's lack of income is the value officials put on teaching their culture to the exclusion of others. (Also note there is already a *thin* internet presence in Nepal, but I believe it's not nearly as important to change as the Gurkha returning after service with the brits).
On some Pacific Islands, there are very stable cultures in place that, although the whole island doesn't make as much money as an average American home, feeds (with locally grown crops and chickens) everyone, and makes most people there happy.
Regardless of the amount of information you pump into these cultures, it's unlikely they're going to change [for the better].
Now, I think you are on the mark for places like South America where we (the US) have suppressed their economies as a side effect of keeping Europe out during the last century. May countries (such as Brazil) are put into a place where they try to play catchup by the same means the US used to establish itself as a world power, but are facing resistance from enviromentalist who think having a stable biosphere is a good thing [sic].
I'm all for putting internet points of presence in every corner of the globe, but we must be realistic about what it will mean to different peoples, and what affect it will have on their cultures.
Killing the game destroys the program...
on
X-Files FPS Episode
·
· Score: 2
I did, however, enjoy the part where the game reverted back to a DOS prompt - no wonder things went wrong.
I also like the bit about how killing the program would destroy the game, or how they couldn't shell out to kill -9 the game process... I guess Chris hasn't discovered the joys of source code...:)
Although I agree with you sentiment, I doubt there's a thing voters could have done to stop it in this case: the software industry has bribed -er- lobbied the Virginian legislature too hard to make the voters' needs matter much. I seem to remember some experts and a few other organizations giving testimony against it. (What, you think you're living in a Democracy?)
The best we can do at this point is to make ourselves heard in VA so we can keep it down in other states. The only way to do that is to threaten the law makers' abililty to get reelected... bad press is our only weapon.
However, I *would* be pissed if the voters of VA let any of their representatives last another election. C'mon Slashdotters, if they don't accept the olive branch at least you can beat them over the head with it.
It does sound rather paranoid to say that the US government, or members there of, are taking down major US (I don't believe businesses from other countries have been affected). At least it would to a layman. Although I try to suppress my paranoia about the actions of my leaders, sometimes I can't help but to connect them to other things.
This administration has also pushed CALEA through(Communications Assistance or Law Enforcement Act of 1994) which other administrations wouldn't touch with a 10' pole ("The Electronic Privacy Papers", Schneier). During the debates about it, Director Freeh of the FBI never identified a single case that was lost due to the advances in technology, nor did he identify a single case that would not have succeded do to *wiretapping* (although the catagory "electronic surveillence" was used interchangable in his speech to ALI) (same book, also eff's ftp site).
This leads me to wonder, is this last push toward more power and freedom for Law Enforcement an extention to CALEA (which, luckily, hasn't been funded so far...)? Is the bill that nobody wanted returning in a more monstorous form? Has the government discovered how to get the ignorant masses behind it? I guess our leaders have read "The Prince"...
When I asked if I was being too paranoid, a good friend of mine said "you're not being paranoid enough." At least we know that, since the FBI is on the case, someone will be arrested and prosecuted; even if the crime is never solved...
Re:There is an economic reason to go to Mars
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
As another reply stated, it ain't a bad idea if you switch it from Mars to the moon or (better yet) a few asteroids.
However, at this point I'd like to get *WAY* ahead of our collective selves and suggets that there is the need to study Mars before any major projects alter its landscape. I know this isn't a possibility in near future (to say the least), but most of the sentiments I get from the Mars Society is to bulldoze the universe under and start building condos (though I'd buy the first if they did).
At this point in history, we really don't have very much (solid) knowledge about the beginnings and evolution of solar systems (not even our own).
Not too long ago, the discovery of very large planets in close orbit to stars made us re-think our previous theories on the formation of planets around stars. Evidence of large amounts of water on Mars suggested a more earth like atmosphere that has gone the way of its magnetosphere (a scarry prospect when you think about it). We are still in the infancy stage of astronomy/planetary science/et al. and need to feed it with an excess of information.
The need to get even the most remote clue of where we stand is of paramount importance before we can intelligently determine where there is to go. One thing that most of our sciences tell us is that we have a limited ticket on this planet. If you're thinking "Yes, but we'll have solved the problem of space travel long before the sun goes red giant in a few billion year, or the atmosphere becomes too polluted/no ozone/too much oxygen/too many green house gasses." Haven't thought about where we can go.
Biospheres are incredibly complex and, at this point, we're not able to reproduce them. This means that the sort of complex ecological system needed to (safely) support even a small population is out of our reach. We are getting better at it, though.
Now, if we master the life siences, we need a place to go. So far, we are just beginning to get the ability to detect earth sized planets or moons in other solarsystems. As for Mars, with out an atmosphere, strong magnetosphere, or other earth like comforts, it might be better to set up camp on a body we can easily send a repair crew to if things go wrong.
If you've gotten through my ramblings this far you might think I'd wish to cut back on space exploration. Well, you're wrong (of course!). I think we need to expand our exploration of space exponentially. The more we know the more we should ask about space and the universe.
I don't believe we'll survive if we seek to concur Mars or the Moon or any other part of our world. It is my deepest belief that we need to move forward, step by goal oriented step, in search of tools for our own survival.
...I think your post conveys a similar attitude to what I was originally ranting about.
I'm sorry I gave that impression, but that wasn't my goal. If nothing else happens, I hope NASA continues its exploration. Indeed, I hope funds are provided to expand it.
My point was that the "whining" may actually be hitting on something. Many of the failures in the American space industry, in general, were caused by shoddy workmanship (ref. failed rocket engines in 1999)...
Granted, this is a new area of human exploration and we haven't learned all the tricks (not by a long shot). But certain reoccuring themes in the organization are causing more difficulties in an already perilous(sp?) persuit.
I do not believe the faillure we're discussing here is one of them. It's simply a hiccup that was bound to happen when you're pushing the envelope of human capability.
P.S. I agree with some previous posts: I doubt distributed.net could turn out code in the time frame needed to help much here. However, what about zero knowledge algorithm to assist NASA in the future with distributed computing? It may offer the needed authentication for the data to make it work while. If you don't know exactly what you're box is crunching, you can mess em up. Thoughts?
Hmmm... good point. We (Americans) do bag on NASA quite a bit and don't give them credit for the amaizing accomplishments they do (anyone know how hard it is to throw a chunk of metal into space and have it land a few million miles away on target? Think about it).
*HOWEVER* NASA does have some problems. In Richard Feynman's book, "What Do You Care What Other People Think?", he points out a serious lack of communication between the engineering staff and the management with regards to the shuttle(s).
The management seems to believe its own press to the exclusion of the opinions of the engineers. That is one major sticking point for those of us who are proud of NASA's achievements, but think it could do a lot better with a different management attitude.
Before you flame me on this, note that I do understand the political reasons that NASA leadership over-sells various technologies (and, evidently, why they're sending missions to Mars instead of using the moon as a testbed...). It just strikes an ugly cord in me when I see well meaning managers hamstringing there worker because they just don't listen.
...If you try to argue that it's all biological, and that women pick the best-looking guys because their instincts say they're the best bet for healthy offspring,...those are the men least likely to really be able to provide for and take of any offspring.
True, but the current thinking in evolutionary psychology is that these leanings in behavior are based on some ancestorial environment and not necessarily the current one.
You've got to admit, that the big push from muscle to brain power is relatively recent in human history.
Who knows, maybe in 1/2 million years the average woman will clue in. Maybe not. But it is already happening. Please take a look at the females posting on slashdot. Almost all of them seem to be at the head of the evolutionary trend.
This reminds me of the Bernie S. case. This is a guy who removed batteries from an autodialer that wasn't evidence (and he wasn't told not to) and was thrown in jail. Law enforcement's view of computer/technological devices is frighteningly warped. What really worries me is that most computer law is getting written by people who don't begin to understand them.
And if the person trying to steal your unlocked car is caught, they're arrested for stealing. It's the same thing.
Okay. But when you steal a car, you have control over which and how many cars you steal. A computer virus' spread is dependent upon the luck/vulnerability/stupidity of the people who, by chance, end up interacting with it. At some point, people need to take responsibility for damage caused by their own actions. Who's actions caused the damage?
If a kid decides to be mischievous and throws a nail into the road, s/he should be responsible for the damage s/he cause to the car that runs over it. If the owner of that car takes the nail out and throws it back onto the road, who's responsible then?
I'm not a fan of this guy, and maybe he should get punished; but too many people are living by the motto "it's not my fault..."
Then there's the time a lady got called her ISP complaining she couldn't get online. Then spent 5 min *shouting* at the tech support for not telling her she needed a modem to connect to the inet.
...or during the big power out on the west coast a few years ago, when a gentleman call his ISP complaining that he couldn't get online. When the situation was explained to him (after he admitted he couldn't turn on any lights or the computer), he wanted to know when the power would be back on...
For me, it's not the newbie's ignorance that's funny[-iest], it's the rightious attitude s/he gets. People who start by assuming it's your fault are either worthy of contempt, or they're techsupport.
What would be interesting is to see how tied this trend is to the rate new people are getting onto the web.
I hypothesize that most of the people getting online for the first time are not technologically oriented (read as: non-technical, older generation). This group is already swayed by standard marketing campaigns, which would give an edge to the large companies posting their URLs on TV, the newspapers, etc.
I, for one, still visit a shotgun pattern of sites (usually from an altavista search); as do many of my friends (generally technical). At the same time, my older relatives (parents, aunts, uncles) tend to find a program on TV and plug in its URL w/o any surfing.
He's definately a black hat. Chicks should be hacked for the challenge, not just to exploit. Sad? Very. heheh
Actually, I think this would fall under the category of script kiddie vs. real hacker. It's sad, but true that a lot of women seem to fall for the social hacker running some lame script.
Flamebait follows:
The feminist revolution caused men to change for the benefit of women, many be we can have a masculine revolution and get more women who want to live up to the "intelligent woman" image.
thats is so hippocritical.. you claim that you as a geek are more tolerant of others opinions then most, but you are better then the rest of the population????
I see no hypocrisy in this. If geeks are more tolerant then others in this society; then, by current western culture standards, they _are_ better.
From what I've seen of the brief desktop history, changes in the computer isn't the only thing that has an effect on computer sales/uses/etc. The people buying the computers change too.
Instead of just using computers to store recipes, use spreadsheets for finances, and print a paper (as PC were origionally marketed), people are using them for communication. The BBS's that were reserved for us young geeks are now online and frequented by old farts.
Linux, in its present form, probably won't be used by anyone who is scared of scandisk. But there is a whole world of new applications for microprcessors (and computers in general) in the counter intelligence research at MIT (for example).
Slashdot Mirror
My 2 cents:
cent #1:
Occam's Razor works for math, but is very dodgy when applied to touchy-feely subjects like god's a existance.
cent #2:
I don't believe in a god or spiritual world for the insightful reasons you gave in the first paragraph.
My brother's wife is Nepali (-ee?). I hear there's both sides of the coin (relatively speaking). There's a *lot* of poverty as well as a lot of Land Rovers.
But I don't know personally.
There seems to be a lot of posts about the "third world" as a group. One small but insurmountable problem is that they aren't a homogeneous group at.
While I agree that most of the third world countries recently freed from colonial rule are working really hard to make material gains, this is not universally true.
May cultures simply don't value a large bank account the way us westerners do; or their culture has ways of looking at the world that preclude the U.S. "protestant work ethic." Some instances that come to mind are Nepal and some Pacific Islanders.
Nepal has not been colonialized (as a matter of fact, they stopped the British army in their tracks and were given their own country a brief time later by treaty. This was also the start of Gurkha employment my the UK...), but they are still a third world country (second poorest). I believe this is due to a combination of a little goverment and a lot culture. Although the goverment is rather opressive on some topics (religion), the main reason for Nepal's lack of income is the value officials put on teaching their culture to the exclusion of others. (Also note there is already a *thin* internet presence in Nepal, but I believe it's not nearly as important to change as the Gurkha returning after service with the brits).
On some Pacific Islands, there are very stable cultures in place that, although the whole island doesn't make as much money as an average American home, feeds (with locally grown crops and chickens) everyone, and makes most people there happy.
Regardless of the amount of information you pump into these cultures, it's unlikely they're going to change [for the better].
Now, I think you are on the mark for places like South America where we (the US) have suppressed their economies as a side effect of keeping Europe out during the last century. May countries (such as Brazil) are put into a place where they try to play catchup by the same means the US used to establish itself as a world power, but are facing resistance from enviromentalist who think having a stable biosphere is a good thing [sic].
I'm all for putting internet points of presence in every corner of the globe, but we must be realistic about what it will mean to different peoples, and what affect it will have on their cultures.
I also like the bit about how killing the program would destroy the game, or how they couldn't shell out to kill -9 the game process... I guess Chris hasn't discovered the joys of source code... :)
Although I agree with you sentiment, I doubt there's a thing voters could have done to stop it in this case: the software industry has bribed -er- lobbied the Virginian legislature too hard to make the voters' needs matter much. I seem to remember some experts and a few other organizations giving testimony against it.
(What, you think you're living in a Democracy?)
The best we can do at this point is to make ourselves heard in VA so we can keep it down in other states. The only way to do that is to threaten the law makers' abililty to get reelected... bad press is our only weapon.
However, I *would* be pissed if the voters of VA let any of their representatives last another election. C'mon Slashdotters, if they don't accept the olive branch at least you can beat them over the head with it.
Just my $.02
I like this guy already :)
Funny that they haven't taken down eToys.com yet :)
It does sound rather paranoid to say that the US government, or members there of, are taking down major US (I don't believe businesses from other countries have been affected). At least it would to a layman. Although I try to suppress my paranoia about the actions of my leaders, sometimes I can't help but to connect them to other things.
This administration has also pushed CALEA through(Communications Assistance or Law Enforcement Act of 1994) which other administrations wouldn't touch with a 10' pole ("The Electronic Privacy Papers", Schneier). During the debates about it, Director Freeh of the FBI never identified a single case that was lost due to the advances in technology, nor did he identify a single case that would not have succeded do to *wiretapping* (although the catagory "electronic surveillence" was used interchangable in his speech to ALI) (same book, also eff's ftp site).
This leads me to wonder, is this last push toward more power and freedom for Law Enforcement an extention to CALEA (which, luckily, hasn't been funded so far...)? Is the bill that nobody wanted returning in a more monstorous form? Has the government discovered how to get the ignorant masses behind it? I guess our leaders have read "The Prince"...
When I asked if I was being too paranoid, a good friend of mine said "you're not being paranoid enough." At least we know that, since the FBI is on the case, someone will be arrested and prosecuted; even if the crime is never solved...
As another reply stated, it ain't a bad idea if you switch it from Mars to the moon or (better yet) a few asteroids.
However, at this point I'd like to get *WAY* ahead of our collective selves and suggets that there is the need to study Mars before any major projects alter its landscape. I know this isn't a possibility in near future (to say the least), but most of the sentiments I get from the Mars Society is to bulldoze the universe under and start building condos (though I'd buy the first if they did).
At this point in history, we really don't have very much (solid) knowledge about the beginnings and evolution of solar systems (not even our own).
Not too long ago, the discovery of very large planets in close orbit to stars made us re-think our previous theories on the formation of planets around stars. Evidence of large amounts of water on Mars suggested a more earth like atmosphere that has gone the way of its magnetosphere (a scarry prospect when you think about it). We are still in the infancy stage of astronomy/planetary science/et al. and need to feed it with an excess of information.
The need to get even the most remote clue of where we stand is of paramount importance before we can intelligently determine where there is to go. One thing that most of our sciences tell us is that we have a limited ticket on this planet. If you're thinking "Yes, but we'll have solved the problem of space travel long before the sun goes red giant in a few billion year, or the atmosphere becomes too polluted/no ozone/too much oxygen/too many green house gasses." Haven't thought about where we can go.
Biospheres are incredibly complex and, at this point, we're not able to reproduce them. This means that the sort of complex ecological system needed to (safely) support even a small population is out of our reach. We are getting better at it, though.
Now, if we master the life siences, we need a place to go. So far, we are just beginning to get the ability to detect earth sized planets or moons in other solarsystems. As for Mars, with out an atmosphere, strong magnetosphere, or other earth like comforts, it might be better to set up camp on a body we can easily send a repair crew to if things go wrong.
If you've gotten through my ramblings this far you might think I'd wish to cut back on space exploration. Well, you're wrong (of course!). I think we need to expand our exploration of space exponentially. The more we know the more we should ask about space and the universe.
I don't believe we'll survive if we seek to concur Mars or the Moon or any other part of our world. It is my deepest belief that we need to move forward, step by goal oriented step, in search of tools for our own survival.
(Last off topic post from me... here :)
I'm sorry I gave that impression, but that wasn't my goal. If nothing else happens, I hope NASA continues its exploration. Indeed, I hope funds are provided to expand it.
My point was that the "whining" may actually be hitting on something. Many of the failures in the American space industry, in general, were caused by shoddy workmanship (ref. failed rocket engines in 1999)...
Granted, this is a new area of human exploration and we haven't learned all the tricks (not by a long shot). But certain reoccuring themes in the organization are causing more difficulties in an already perilous(sp?) persuit.
I do not believe the faillure we're discussing here is one of them. It's simply a hiccup that was bound to happen when you're pushing the envelope of human capability.
P.S. I agree with some previous posts: I doubt distributed.net could turn out code in the time frame needed to help much here. However, what about zero knowledge algorithm to assist NASA in the future with distributed computing? It may offer the needed authentication for the data to make it work while. If you don't know exactly what you're box is crunching, you can mess em up. Thoughts?
(Sorry again for the off topic post)
Hmmm... good point. We (Americans) do bag on NASA quite a bit and don't give them credit for the amaizing accomplishments they do (anyone know how hard it is to throw a chunk of metal into space and have it land a few million miles away on target? Think about it).
*HOWEVER* NASA does have some problems. In Richard Feynman's book, "What Do You Care What Other People Think?", he points out a serious lack of communication between the engineering staff and the management with regards to the shuttle(s).
The management seems to believe its own press to the exclusion of the opinions of the engineers. That is one major sticking point for those of us who are proud of NASA's achievements, but think it could do a lot better with a different management attitude.
Before you flame me on this, note that I do understand the political reasons that NASA leadership over-sells various technologies (and, evidently, why they're sending missions to Mars instead of using the moon as a testbed...). It just strikes an ugly cord in me when I see well meaning managers hamstringing there worker because they just don't listen.
Comments? corrections?
True, but the current thinking in evolutionary psychology is that these leanings in behavior are based on some ancestorial environment and not necessarily the current one.
You've got to admit, that the big push from muscle to brain power is relatively recent in human history.
Who knows, maybe in 1/2 million years the average woman will clue in. Maybe not. But it is already happening. Please take a look at the females posting on slashdot. Almost all of them seem to be at the head of the evolutionary trend.
This reminds me of the Bernie S. case. This is a guy who removed batteries from an autodialer that wasn't evidence (and he wasn't told not to) and was thrown in jail. Law enforcement's view of computer/technological devices is frighteningly warped. What really worries me is that most computer law is getting written by people who don't begin to understand them.
And if the person trying to steal your unlocked car is caught, they're arrested for stealing. It's the same thing.
Okay. But when you steal a car, you have control over which and how many cars you steal. A computer virus' spread is dependent upon the luck/vulnerability/stupidity of the people who, by chance, end up interacting with it. At some point, people need to take responsibility for damage caused by their own actions. Who's actions caused the damage?
If a kid decides to be mischievous and throws a nail into the road, s/he should be responsible for the damage s/he cause to the car that runs over it. If the owner of that car takes the nail out and throws it back onto the road, who's responsible then?
I'm not a fan of this guy, and maybe he should get punished; but too many people are living by the motto "it's not my fault..."
I think you misspelled 31337, dood :)
Indeed. Some very strange happenings.
Then there's the time a lady got called her ISP complaining she couldn't get online. Then spent 5 min *shouting* at the tech support for not telling her she needed a modem to connect to the inet.
...or during the big power out on the west coast a few years ago, when a gentleman call his ISP complaining that he couldn't get online. When the situation was explained to him (after he admitted he couldn't turn on any lights or the computer), he wanted to know when the power would be back on...
For me, it's not the newbie's ignorance that's funny[-iest], it's the rightious attitude s/he gets. People who start by assuming it's your fault are either worthy of contempt, or they're techsupport.
What would be interesting is to see how tied this trend is to the rate new people are getting onto the web.
I hypothesize that most of the people getting online for the first time are not technologically oriented (read as: non-technical, older generation). This group is already swayed by standard marketing campaigns, which would give an edge to the large companies posting their URLs on TV, the newspapers, etc.
I, for one, still visit a shotgun pattern of sites (usually from an altavista search); as do many of my friends (generally technical). At the same time, my older relatives (parents, aunts, uncles) tend to find a program on TV and plug in its URL w/o any surfing.
Just a thought.
Actually, I think this would fall under the category of script kiddie vs. real hacker. It's sad, but true that a lot of women seem to fall for the social hacker running some lame script.
Flamebait follows:
The feminist revolution caused men to change for the benefit of women, many be we can have a masculine revolution and get more women who want to live up to the "intelligent woman" image.
IIRC The Drunken Master, with Jackie Chan.
I see no hypocrisy in this. If geeks are more tolerant then others in this society; then, by current western culture standards, they _are_ better.
What's the mystery?
But now you can join the National Space Society and relocate to Mars :)
Man, I feel for ya. But just think about coding the API's and you'll feel better. It's like stubbing your toe to get rid of a headache :)
But that's just you're opinion ;)
I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
From what I've seen of the brief desktop history, changes in the computer isn't the only thing that has an effect on computer sales/uses/etc. The people buying the computers change too.
Instead of just using computers to store recipes, use spreadsheets for finances, and print a paper (as PC were origionally marketed), people are using them for communication. The BBS's that were reserved for us young geeks are now online and frequented by old farts.
Linux, in its present form, probably won't be used by anyone who is scared of scandisk. But there is a whole world of new applications for microprcessors (and computers in general) in the counter intelligence research at MIT (for example).
Don't give up on the penguin yet.
Damn. Beat me to it!!!