it always amuses me that that argument of financial sense only applies to alternate energy devices. Just about very single other consumer product out there doesn't have that distinction.
That is because energy is different. It is a consumable which only provides value when used by a device and which differs little from a consumer perspective. The consumer just wants it to be available and cheap, very few people are willing to pay for 'green' electricity. It's just the same for gas, how many people would voluntarily buy Kyoto-gas at 100% markup? In short, the reality of the market (capitalism and all that) is that green energy needs to be cheap _or_ dirty energy needs to become more expensive (through taxes, scarcity or whatever).
This is not negated by people like you who like to do things different. No offence, but most people don't want to go through the effort that you went through. Hoping that other people will change just isn't realistic.
No one should have ever bought a personal computer, because they weren't "cost effective" and not "there" yet back in the day.
First of all, they were cost-effective to many people. In fact, I would say that this was especially true for the first group of users, who were big businesses. Those guys don't invest in something without cost effectiveness in mind. More importantly though, people were willing to pay for these newfangled things. In the end, that is all what matters from an adoption standpoint. Now, if you can convince many more people to create/use/buy green energy without improving the cost effectiveness, I will applaud you. However, I just don't think that this is possible.
Of course, the key to communicating is a common frame of reference. The key question in this thread is whether pictures or language are better for communicating. The existence of people with handicaps is a totally separate issue. While important, usability for a handicapped person is inherently different from usability for a 'regular' person.
Personally I think that pictures are easier to parse, but less accurate. As such, a mix is probably best, using language for complexer elements of the interface and pictures for those which are easy to understand. That way, you reduce the complexity of the interface, while maintaining a fair amount of accuracy.
Maybe. I think tradition is a part of it, but seeing the relatively low numbers that turn up with eletions in the Netherlands for example, I am not so sure if peopel can really handle the choice better.
Voter turnout in The Netherlands is higher than in the US.
Question is, what is better, someone voting on a side while they just don't know but its what their environment does as well, or people not voting because they dont know.
People who don't think for themselves, but simply copy others are not improving the result of the election. They are simply distorting the result. It seems that in the US, this group has become a majority of the voters. The end result is that politicians stop caring about being positive, but move to a smear campaign, since the 'copiers' can only be persuaded not to vote for the other candidate. A consistent and intelligent set of standpoints is not that important anymore, because you can't convince the copiers anyway. In The Netherlands, this seems to be much less the case.
comparing the Christian viewpoint (as presented in the Bible and throughout history) against with how people (individually and as a collective human race) behave.
Again, those kind of statements are quite meaningless from a scientific viewpoint. Assuming that you accept the Bible as a non-historical document (if you don't, you can simply be proven wrong since some 'facts' taken from the bible can be proven not to be true), it's impossible to 'test' your statement.
Humans have some of this 'creator' ability: we can think of objects and make them - the difference is we cannot create things out of nothing; that is, we have to have some raw materials.
I disagree that nothingness does not contain raw materials. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, (virtual) particles can be produced in an absolute vacuum and their existence has physical consequences, such as the radiation of black holes (but virtual particles cannot be a real source of new particles). Secondly, current theory is that matter was originated from an atomic particle/entity which expanded (the big bang). Since we cannot look beyond the big bang, we don't know how the matter was created. There may be a meta-universe which automatically creates virtual particles with a large amount of energy. Such a particle may expand to a universe (in alternate dimensions). Perhaps after a while (in our universe, billions of years), our particle-based universe merges with a anti-particle universe and we are gone again.
Of course, I'm making things up. However, I could be right and then no God is needed to explain the creation of the universe. So why don't you just leave the option open? Why are you so certain that a creator is involved?
but that if God so willed he could un-create the universe. Humans have some of this power - we can un-create some man-made structures and even eliminate some ideas from the common thought of mankind.
If you limit God's role to ending the universe, what is the point in believing in him? Once he manifests himself, you are gone (and everything else you care about). If he doesn't, his role as sustainer (although I would call it 'destroyer') is totally irrelevant to you.
Or do you believe that God actively interferes with our universe?
Some of the following definition, as opposed to the first two, definitely hinges on faith. It is also the definition which is, as far as I know, the most difficult to define. I am actually going to use an anthropomorphic definition and simply state that 'universe' is the reality in which we exist, the nature of which we debate as being independent of itself or dependent upon the existence of God. This is not a "complete" definition by any means, but it basically means "everything that would have to have been created, if it was a created thing".
Do you mean the start-conditions of this world? For instance, there are some basic laws & constants which cannot be reduced further. Do you claim that God created those, for instance, because of their beauty (a common argument among christian scientists)? Personally, I don't feel it is necessary to have God to create beautiful things, because I have seen many pretty things which were created by scientifically explainable phenomena.
With that preface done, I'll say what I believe to be the character of what I mean by God. I'll not go into why I believe all these things because that would increase the length of this post several times. My intent is to clarify my statement, "I believe in God".
The major character traits of God I believe are: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, holy, just, creative, relational, and loving. I'll try to define each of these briefly. (And I'm sure I've left a few other "major" characteristics out with which others may be familiar). [...] Loving: this is one thing that people always bring up when talking about God, but it is meaningless without the other features of God. How can you be loving if you're not just
I think, though, that they are a little unnerved by the fact that all these great, objective, scientific minds arrived at the conclusion that a god exists.
No, I think that most people read it as an argument from authority. I think you would get similar responses if the sig was:
"Linus Thorvalds, Bruce Perens and RMS all vote Democrat."
This either means they have to wonder what these "great minds" were smoking or what they themselves are smoking to not see it.
There are those who cannot accept that smart people can believe in God. I'm not one of those, nevertheless, I don't think that the sig contains very good examples. Take Galileo for instance, he was living in a time when freedom of religion did not exist and the church kicked him around pretty badly when he published 'atheist' theories. Even after Enlightment, a choice for atheism often had negative consequences (and still has for some people). Even if someone didn't believe in God, it may have been wise to pretend they did. In short, it's hardly certain that all of the people on the list really believe in God or chose so freely.
A second problem is that God is not a well-defined concept. If you define 'God' as the structure of the world, then many atheists would 'believe' in that. Einstein used this definition when he said that "God does not play dice." Still, Einstein has always said that he didn't believe in a religious God.
I'm sure that you can easily come up with a list of contemporary western scientist who freely believe in a religious God, but the parent's sig is pretty meaningless as it is.
I myself am in the "Everything I have seen leads me to believe in God" camp of thought. If you want to know more of how people can *gasp* actually arrive at this conclusion, I'm sure myself or Doesn't_Comment_Code will be happy to entertain any legitimate conversation.
How do you define God? What is his relationship with 'everything you have seen.' Unless you answer those questions, your statement is completely meaningless.
The problem with this idea is that the rug may be pulled out from under you. Say you spend $$$ to restore an old movie and press thousands of DVDs. After the C&D, you have to destroy those DVDs and you don't get compensated for your hard work. Or what if you want to sample an old song? If the artists complains, you may have to destroy all CDs. How are _you_ going to get compensated for all the work involved in creating the new song? So your idea doesn't really help those who want to do more than make a simple copy.
I think we need a registration every X years. You get 5 or 10 years for free and after that you have to register and pay a small fee for an extension. You can keep on extending until the maximum copyright term.
Indeed, it's weird that so many people (including many 'scientists') are only interested in justifying the current situation. The only acceptable outcome is 9 (or 8) planets and the theory must fit this outcome. Well, I guess that Kuhn was right when he said that paradigms die hard. Of course, the problem is that we don't really have a good criterium. Stern's criterium may be one of the best, but I still don't see why the roundness should be the most important criterium. Still, at least it's non-arbitrary and I'm sure we will come up with something better as we learn more about the birth of solar systems.
I don't think the US could find any reasonable justification to attack Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait or Venezuela. The only other OPEC countries which produce more than a thousand barrels a day are Libya, Iran, Iraq and Nigeria. It is questionable whether the US would be able to start a war again in the future just over oil and to keep a new regime in place. The backlash over Iraq is very bad for the US and the regime change is not going very well either (and it is a very costly affair). Furthermore, even if we assume that these countries can be forced to keep the dollar, they still only total 15% of the world's oil production. Let's assume that North-America will also keep the dollar, for another 20% of the oil production. That leaves 65% of the oil producers which may freely move to the euro (one of the biggest producers, Russia is introducing the euro already).
I think you've proved my point. You have not spent your time listing comparisons where OS 9 is "better in some respects", you have spent your time "bashing" OS X. (And no, you did not mis-state it, you have been bashing.)
Again, you said: "Most of the "mistakes" I've read about boil down to simply operating differently." That statement allows me to bash OS X and ask you to make a good case that this is not a mistake, but a different way of working (or you can claim that the problem doesn't exist in OS X). Lambasting me for taking this approach is dishonest, because you (basically) asked for it.
I've tried to give several examples to make things concrete, but I don't remember anywhere you've unequivicaly admitted that even a single one was valid.
I've said that interleaving windows is more natural for a document-centric philosophy. That means that I agree with you that OS X is operating differently in that case. So there I agreed with you that this is not a mistake. However, you were so focused on bashing OS 9 for moving all windows of the application to the front, that you failed to notice this.
I've also agreed with you that the application menu is an improvement, not a mistake. The fact that I also pointed out that the implementation is somewhat flawed might have caused you to gloss over this point.
I still disagree that a do-it-all dock is a conceptual improvement, because I don't believe that one widget can provide all that functionality. I also don't believe that the OS X Finder is a conceptual improvement, if only because there is no real philosophy behind it. OS 9 did not make these mistakes, because: - different widgets were provided (you may think that the OS 9 widgets suck, but then we are talking about implementation, not about the OS's operating differently) - the OS 9 Finder effectively provided a spatial file management environment (which you may dislike, but that's simply because you don't like the concept, not because of 'mistakes').
Here you're saying "some", but again, you've argued as if you mean "all". My "most" and your "some" can co-exist quite nicely, you know. Those two phrases for quantity are not mutually exclusive.
That is true and I would not have responded in this way if your tone was different. However, your original post showed no consideration whatsoever for some of the serious issues that do exist. That might also have to do with the oft-repeated mantra by OS X zealots that complaints about OS X are all due to inflexibility, which irritates me mightily. In my eyes, your original post was in the same vein.
I'm still considering whether you or I are to blame for this perception. Probably both. Next time I will try not to jump the gun too easily, but you might want to also consider a less hostile writing style.
This is revisionist history at its worst (best?). MacOS was document-centric from the start. That was the major difference from DOS and its other predecessors: you didn't invoke a program with a document as an argument, you opened a document and magically the correct application ran so you could manipulate it.
Then please explain to me why the application's menu bar is not attached to the document. That is the only sensible place for a purely document-centric OS. A lot of software on Windows has got the application menu inside the document window. Closing the document means closing the application. On the Mac, closing the last document usually does not close the application. Even if it would, the interface does not make it clear (where it is very clear in the screenshot I provided).
Another example of application-centric design is that you first start an application and then create a document. A document-centric OS would allow you to create a document independent of an application, for instance in the Finder by using a conte
I am the one that is saying the new is, on the whole, better than the old.
No, what you said is that there are hardly any serious problems with OS X ('It's not a bug, but a feature'): "Most of the "mistakes" I've read about boil down to simply operating differently."
Then you argued that the people who think that certain OS 9 features are better than their OS X counterparts are zealots: "But OS 9's GUI has achieved sacred status in the minds of the inflexible and so you can't argue with them."
What I'm saying is that there are some serious problems with OS X, some of which didn't exist or were less a problem on OS 9.
You are the one defending pen and paper.
No, what I am saying is that we should work on the problems of the new technology. You can do that by either going back to what worked well previously or improve the new technology. The problem is that, according to you, the problems do not really exists and suggesting that OS 9 was better in some respects makes me a zealot.
First, you say elsewhere that you only want to point out that some features of OS 9 are better than some features of OS X. But you insist in either defending every difference to the end, or you dismiss improvements you can't argue with by saying, "it's not exactly world-shattering". This goes way beyond trying to point out a few advantages of OS 9.
The problem is that I disagree with many of the problems that you see in OS 9 and the other examples are usually not that important in my view. That does not mean that I don't see major problems with OS 9 (compared to OS X). I do, but you have not talked about: - Stability - Preemptive multitasking - Unix underpinnings - Java support - etc.
I think their interests are better served with a trashcan that is always visible and accessible (MacOS X) rather than a trashcan that is always in the same place, but not always visible or accessible (MacOS 9). Yes, a floating widget would be more useful, but last I checked, OS 9 was farther from having this than OS X, so how does this count as a criticism of OS X in comparison to OS 9? Again, you're going way beyond what you claim to be doing.
The trashcan in the dock is a bad solution, IMHO. If you use it frequently, you would probably prefer a static target. If you don't, you probably want to hide it (which you cannot do without hiding the entire dock). Now, I never said that OS 9 got it right, you just put those words in my mouth. I do like that the trashcan is only visible in the Finder in OS 9, because that's the only place where you use it.
The reason why I'm bashing OS X on this issue is that OS X made the trashcan an issue for me, where it wasn't before.
Anyway, I'll just pretend that we're having an open discussion about the problems in OS X and how to improve them.
Please list some more of the "great many". From the discussion so far, it's more like "fixed a great many and created some". (In your eyes, the "some" are larger than the "many", but I've seen no indication of the numberical imbalance you imply.
Writing a paper on all the problems is too much work for me, so I'll refer you to the Arstechnica articles on OS X. You can find plenty of problems there.
Why did I have the even stronger need for Drag Thing with OS 9? Would you be willing to say this stronger need indicates a worse interface design? The fact is in MacOS 9 I needed three or four Drag Thing palettes to do the work that only requires one Drag Thing palette (plus Finder and the Dock) in MacOS X 10.3. This is a dramatic improvement, which you can't bring yourself to acknowledge. You seem to insist on severely criticizing MacOS X doing better than MacOS 9 but not perfect.
I agree that there was a serious problem with easy access to a 'shortlist' of applications and documents in OS 9. I never claimed that this was not true and I used a haxie to fix that.
Or more precisely, you (and other vocal critics) can't adapt to them. Many of us are doing just fine.
This is a flawed argument. Some people are still using exclusively pen & paper and are doing fine. That doesn't mean that pen & paper is suitable for the work I want to do or that I shouldn't desire something better.
I'm not saying the old shortcut was totally broken in the context of the old Finder. I'm saying that the old Finder's shortcut worked differently from CMD-N in every app I've ever used and is thus broken in the context of the MacOS GUI.
No, like I said before, in the old Finder, a window cannot be seperated from a folder. A window shows a certain folder and only one window can show that folder at one time. Creating a new window does not make sense. What should it show (especially when you do 'new window' twice)? Creating a new folder makes sense, because a folder is the key metaphore around which the old Finder resolves. It is the best choice for 'create new document'. A window is just the representation of a folder, so it's not central to a spatial Finder.
You weren't implying you were smarter, but you did immediately leap to the conclusion that I must surely be using fewer windows/apps than you.
I was being cynical. That's not leaping to conclusions.
Yes, the Dock is sub-optimal for managing dozens of windows/folders, though not applications. I can't think of an OS 9 alternative that was better. Two programs that were must-haves under OS9 and still are in OS X: 1) Drag Thing, and 2) Default Folder.
Drag Thing is basically a different kind of dock. The question is: why do people (including you) feel the need to have seperate dock in addition to the dock they already have? The only reasonable conclusion is bad interface design. The dock cannot properly perform one of its key features and the result is that people now have two different kinds of docks on their desktop. That is extremely inconsistent, a waste of screen space and the worst kind of haxie to fix the GUI (didn't you bash haxies before?).
OS 9 may have had only a weak type of dock (pop-up windows), but you could completely ignore that feature and/or just use Drag Thing. OS X is extremely inflexible because you are stuck with the crappy dock. IMO, the dock doesn't really excel at any of its features, in no small part because it tries to be everything for everyone. The result is that I prefer a haxie for just about every feature it supposedly offers.
If you rarely use it, being a static target doesn't matter much.
I think that many other users do drag stuff to the trash. I was looking out for their interests. Anyway, the point was that such a widget would much more flexible.
It boils down to this: you had twisted yourself around OS 9's dozens of inconsistencies, limitations, and bugs and it worked well for you. OS X has fixed most of those (five steps forward) but broken two or three of your favorite things so you trash it.
No, OS X fixed some of these and created a great many more. My favorite widgets earned that status by making my life easier. The OS X interface removed them and replaced them with something which is worse. That is why I complain.
Actually, it is broken. The direct manipulation metaphor says that when you click on something, you are selecting that something. Not that something and "related" somethings. It's inconsistent from the way selection works in all other contexts in all other apps. That means it's broken.
No, dragging should always result in a selection. Clicking can have many responses, such as pressing a button or placing a cursor. Clicking has never been used consistently (in any OS), so you cannot claim that OS 9 was inconsistent.
But it was convenient and necessary in an OS that was actually designed for uni-tasking, not multi-tasking.
No, it has got nothing to with with uni- or multi-tasking. OS 9 and OS X are appli
Please, just because I list three or four does not mean that there are only three or four.
Sure, but these problems aren't exactly world-shattering. Using the File-menu for app-related stuff isn't too bad as long as it is wrong consistently. You learn it once and then you can deal with it. The level of problems in OS X that I talked about is much more serious IMHO because you can't really adapt to them.
I could list many more, but I thought I could make my point my listing a few that OS-9-ers insist are broken by OS X when in fact they were fixed.
I've never heard people claim that the application-menu is a bad idea (although they may disagree with the implementation). Using a new shortcut for creating a folder is a different case, because it basically hinges around the design of the Finder. The old Finder was spatial, which means that it attempts to give a 'real' representation of your files. Creating a new window does not really fit into that paradigm, since views do not exist. Windows equal folders and you create a new window by opening an existing folder. Creating a window an sich is appropriate for a 'browser' Finder, which just shows you a specific view of your files. There you can create a view which shows the same folder as another window, so there is no 1-on-1 relationship between folders and windows. This has certain advantages and certain disadvantages, which I won't go into at the moment. Suffice it to say that both are useful, but you cannot use them at the same time, since some features are mutually exclusive.
Anyway, the problem is that Apple did away with the spatial Finder and replaced it by a partially browser, partially spatial abomination. A good example of the problems you get is that it's nearly impossible to understand the view options of windows. John Siracusa has asked for consistent Finder which seperates the spatial and the browser elements in seperate modes, so that things actually work consistently and you have the best of both worlds instead of the worst.
At the moment, the fact that the OS X Finder is neither purely spatial or browser-based means that the new keyboard shortcut is broken. The old one was not broken in the OS 9 (since it is suitable to a spatial Finder), but it would be broken in the OS X Finder.
Ooo, hoo, hoo, who made you so smart? Just goes to show that all curmudgeons are the same. They all apparently assume that they've been using MacOS longer and that they use it harder than anyone else.
I never claimed that using more apps makes me smarter, better or whatever. The problem is that the dock cannot really cope with such a workflow. It's so overloaded that it works best if you use just a few apps (there is a reason why Apple's screenshots always show just a few apps). People like me go in the territory where the dock sucks. I don't believe that I'm unreasonable when I desire to use a lot of apps and documents and still want to use the features that the dock supposedly offers. Or do you want to claim that the dock is still as effective when you want fast access to 30 apps and 30 documents (where many docs have the same icon)?
BTW, the problem is not that I "operate differently". You can use that excuse for everything. A software developer can claim that a crash after selecting a menu item is caused by me 'operating differently', because other people don't select that menu option.
Awww... And MacOS 9's solution of having the trashcan on the desktop -- where it's either inaccessible or you have to warp your style to make sure it's always visible -- is better?
In OS 9, I only touched the trashcan when I wanted to deal with already deleted files (also use the shortcut). The easiest solution was just to hide all apps and open the can on the desk
Remember, the OS 9 GUI was originally designed for a uni-tasking computer with a tiny screen. It was brilliant. But over the years, more and more features were welded on, Frankenstein-style and it ended up being inconsistent and unwieldy. Curmudgeons now bitterly complain that it was better, but it sucked in so many ways...
Please, the inconsistencies were relatively minor considering the history. I mean, a menu which is overloaded and an inconsistent keyboard shortcut isn't exactly world shattering. MacOS X contains some big interface issues and it doesn't have this excuse.
Most of the "mistakes" I've read about boil down to simply operating differently.
Of course, using the OS differently can mean that you aren't bothered by some problems. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. For example, using the name of the application for the application menu sucks because the first few menu's will be in a different location for every application. It's well researched that keeping widgets in the same location makes it easier to use them.
The same goes for the dock. You can only lock down one side, which means that either your regular apps will move or your trashcan will. Furthermore, there is no way to have a consistent placement for documents. These problems could be solved by splitting the dock in sections, but we cannot even replace the dock by a custom one since the dock is too deeply integration with the OS (by opening the API, people could build a better dock).
And why is Apple using a metal skin for the Finder? Is that consistent?
I could go on, but I point you to John Siracuse's reviews at Arstechnica for other (IMHO) valid criticism. There is even an entire article about problems with the new Finder.
But OS 9's GUI has achieved sacred status in the minds of the inflexible and so you can't argue with them.\
The thing is that I could easily mod OS 9 into an incredibly efficient interface. I would love to have an interface with OS X that would be just as pleasant to use. Unfortunately, the current interface is lacking, even with a dozen mods. Added problem are the people who cannot accept that you might not like what they drool over. They argue that people like us 'just don't use it right'. Thing is, I am flexible and willing to change, but the alternative should be good enough. Just because you only use five applications for your work, doesn't mean that I shouldn't use thirty regularly. And using thirty apps, plus having a few documents minimized makes the dock a pretty crappy tool. And how do you temporarily store ten folders so you can access them easily? The dock doesn't show the difference, so I would have to memorize their position or slow down and wait for the tooltips (productivity--). Minimizing folders to their toolbar wasn't perfect either, but at least I can easily find them again. Furthermore, I want to know which apps I'm running. Using the dock, this means that I have to scan all my thirty apps and see which one has got a small triangle underneath it. The application dock in OS 9 is much faster to use.
You can call me inflexible until you're blue in the face, but I actually tried the alternatives and I tried to like them. The big problem is that the alternatives suck.
Could you explain to me how giving away a browser benefitted Microsoft?
Microsoft doesn't give the browser away, you pay for it when you buy a copy of Windows. You can no longer choose to pocket that money or spend it on a competing product, because you are forced to buy the bundle if you want Windows. That is anti-competitive, because Windows is a monopoly. That means that many people cannot reasonably choose a competing OS where you don't have to pay for the browser. In short, many consumers are forced to pay for IE. This is unfair to competitors as well, because they don't have the option of making you pay for their browser even when you don't want to use it.
BSD style is friendly towards proprietary software[...]those goals might include something like allowing some to take freedom from their users?
Your logic is flawed, since it also be used to promote a police state. Due process of law, public trials and no torture coerced confessions can all hinder the prosecution of criminals (and are thus 'friendly' towards criminals). However, I feel that the downsides of a police state are too great.
Proprietary code can lead to abuse, but there are also a great many closed source applications with which I have no problem. I also feel that the GPL is far from perfect for every situation and that some software would never be build if the GPL was the only option. So I simply don't think that the abuse of software users is important enough to accept these downsides.
You're mixing apple with oranges. Are trying to deliberatly influence others into thinking I'm agains Democracy? I seriously hope not.
No, the point is that popularity can be immensely important. In that regard, popularity can be a very important goal if you want to achieve something (assuming a hierarchy of goals).
People don't vote because they are popular but because it's their right to participate in Democracy, and voting on THAT guy only because he is popular is a perversion of Democracy. You should vote on the guy who you think represents your interests best.
That's not what I meant. My point is that a democracy only works if voting is popular. It cannot work if only an elite few bother or are able to vote. In the context of democracy, popularity is not shallow.
Your problem is that you confuse goal with reward. Stallman's goal: freedom for _all_ (yes, all, that's why GPL is so important), not just those who got the code with a Free license like BSD. His reward: popularity for being one of the most important freedom fighters of nowadays.
Every reward can be a goal. I can't judge RMS' ego, but personal popularity is desired by many, so he might see that as one of his goals. But anyway, that was not the kind of popularity I was talking about. I was talking about popularizing the GPL, which seems to be a valid goal to you.
Oh really? Let's look at your examples: - Spreading good code Spreading -> popularity
- Popularizing a certain standard, concept, etc. Popularizing -> popularity
- More people contribute More people -> popularity
- Personal satisfaction If your goal is popularity, of course you'll be satisfied, all you said were goals of popularity, and none of doing something good which results in popularity...
'Spreading good code' uses the popularity of software components to increase the quality of software. Popularity is a means.
'Popularizing a certain standard, concept, etc' is what you do when you want people to use something great. A good example is the TCP/IP-stack. Once upon a time that was new and a BSD'd TCP/IP-stack made it easier for that standard to spread. The end-goal might be to allow computers to communicate. Popularizing TCP/IP is a means to reach that goal.
'More people contribute' to improve the product in one way or another. The end-goal is that the value of the product increases. An example is the open sourcing of Linux, Linus could never have done all the work himself to get Linux to where it is today. Popularity is a means to get these contributions.
'Personal satisfaction' is especially important to open source developers who work in their spare time. Helping people seems like a worthy goal to me and the more popular your software is, the happier you may feel about your work (since you help more people).
Popularity is always the means to reach another goal in these cases.
all you said were goals of popularity, and none of doing something good which results in popularity...
Wrong. Stallman wants to impell PROPRIETARY towards freedom for their users, since readline is so useful, it has made some sofware become GPL because of it.
No, producing GPL'ed libraries compels every non-GPL developer to GPL their code (so they can use that library). There is no exception for (say) BSD developers and you can hardly call them proprietary (using caps doesn't change that).
All software should be free as in freedom, so I completely fail to see the problem here.
That's your personal conviction, but I want to leave that choice up to consumers & developers. As a developer, I may choose a less restrictive license than the GPL because it suits my goals better. I don't particular fancy another argument over why Free is better than free, but it helps if you at least appreciate that other people may not share your views on this matter.
Popularity is a shallow goal
No, it isn't. Many great things can only be achieved by popularity. Democracy can only work if most people are allowed to vote and do so. A well educated populace is also highly desired and can only be reached by having a 'popular' education system. I also don't think that RMS considers popularity something beneath contempt, since he would be happy to have all the software GPL'ed.
Perhaps you wanted to point out that popularity should never be the end goal, but it never is. There is always some underlying reason, in the case of BSD-like licenses: - Spreading good code - Popularizing a certain standard, concept, etc. - More people contribute - Personal satisfaction These are all perfectly valid reasons. There is nothing shallow about any of them.
This is why the US treasury has announced that they will start redesigning bills every few years.
One of the major problems with this is that it makes it harder for people to detect false currency. Unless the treasury makes the old notes obsolete (and have you exchange them for new ones), you will have many different bank note designs in circulation (including rare, old ones). How will you know what an old bill is supposed to look like? There is a good chance that you will accept a good fake, because you will think that it's an old bill.
Isn't it better to just have a radical redesign every 25-50 years? Then people will really focus on the new features. As a bonus, you can obsolete the old bills after a few years. The bills which aren't swapped for new ones result in some extra government income.
When the U.S. gets a coalition together, it must be because they were blackmailed or bribed.
No, not 'must be'. A pretty good case can be made that at least some of the nations were coerced into joining. That report doesn't address some of the post-war issues, such as only giving rebuilding contracts to coalition members (instead of going with the cheapest bidder). Those contracts are paid in part by Iraqi oil, which means that the coalition spends Iraqi money in their own interests, 'paying' countries for their support.
Unfortunately, I really do think you're myopic and naive enough to actually believe your own argument whilst simultaneously ignoring everyone else's.
I don't ignore your arguments, I disprove them. Do I need to explain the difference?
However, so long as the main Palestinian militant group (Hamas) has the stated position of essentially driving the Israelis into the sea, never even proposing more than a temporary truce, and has the support of the Palestinians this conflict will never end as far as I can tell.
Hamas has grown over time to be far more important in no small part because of Israel's policy of marginalizing the Palestinian Authorities. If you face a group who cannot be bargained with, the proper strategy is to weaken them, not to strengthen them by attacking a more moderate group. Israel has done the latter, which pretty much guarantees a continued conflict.
Many Palestinians support Hamas because they are desperate. Those people can be won back to a peaceful solution if they believe that peace can be achieved (on reasonable terms). The difficult part is to give them new hope (which cannot be done by a Palestinian organization on its own).
The Israelis are occupying a rather small area compared to most nations and, like the Palestinians, have nowhere else to go.
Israel is very strong militarily and if the survival of Israel is at stake, I think that they would probably get support from at least the US. Besides, quite a few of its citizens have dual nationality AFAIK. The Palestines are worse off in every respect (less territory, really no place to go, few natural resources (water), little military strength and no strong allies).
There is not a way to punish a suicide bomber after the fact and difficult to stop them before hand, so what would you have them do?
You push towards peace even harder. Every time Israel stops the negotiations, assassinates someone or closes the borders in retaliation, they strengthen Hamas. It is folly to think that the proper response to violence is to strike back as hard as you can. If both parties do that, continued escalation is inevitable. Believing that the other party will give up their tactics, while you cannot imagine doing that yourself, is pretty illogical.
Choosing the path of peace is incredibly difficult however. It's sad that Rabin died because he did not only understand that the death spiral had to be broken, but he also had the strength of leadership to do so.
And PLEASE don't tell me that simply having them back out of Gaza and the West Bank will miraculously solve all of the problems.
Restoring faith will require concessions. Once upon a time the Palestinian Authorities where taking control of Gaza and the West Bank, building up a police force, trying to get the economy into gear. Building up a country from scratch takes time and money, but Israel got impatient and started attacking the PA. I still think that peace could have been achieved if Israel was more supportive of the nation building going on.
Of course, the same thing can be done again, based on a truce with Hamas and extensive support from EU & US. Unfortunately, people often lack the stamina that is required for long term solutions (especially in todays world where we go from hype to hype).
Sharon visiting the Temple Mount, boy that sure is something worth sacrificing thousands of lives to prevent
It was a highly deliberate provocation when tensions were running high. The Temple Mount is very important to Muslims and the visit was a strong claim to the site. Of course, you cannot simply claim that the intifada was intended to keep Sharon away. The visit was the last drop that convinced the Palestinian leaders that peace with Israel was not possible.
Oddly enough, it seems like it's mostly backwater, third-world nations with nothing to lose and everything to gain by signing this treaty!
Like France, Germany, the UK, Spain, China? I could go on, but you probably think that India, Italy, Brazil and Argentina are backwater nations (not that I think that every American is ignorant, I only feel that way about you).
Bush-hating, Saddam-loving liberals
Sigh. Just because you dislike one bully, doesn't mean you side with the other one. Of course, this is probably a difficult thing to understand for someone who hasn't even mastered the skill of reading.
America got a coalition of nations willing to back the Iraq war
Where many of those where bribed into joining. But this isn't about the war, so please limit your trolling to the topic at hand.
But now that the shoe's on the other foot and not only America but Russia, Britain, and most of Europe hasn't signed it
Darn, I'm afraid the facts get in the way of your storytelling again. The UK already ratified the contract (Blair said that global warming was one of the most important challenges facing mankind), together with the EU. I remember reading that the EU will continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions even if the Kyoto Protocol does not get enough support.
it's only the U.S. that gets faulted.
Russia is still in limbo, so they are not being bashed yet. If they do turn it down (which would be foolish since they can profit from it), there will be plenty of harsh words. But please, don't whine like a baby, it's rather pathetic.
Why don't you just come out and say what you're really feeling? You hate the U.S. It's that simple. Why try to manufacture contradictory arguments, slanted facts, half truths, and outright lies to get your hatred across? Why not just stand up and say "I hate the United States because they're the richest, most powerful, most free nation on this Earth!" Wouldn't that be easier than what you're doing?
Of course it would be easier for you, the truth is hard to take. The cognitive dissonance has hit you hard when you blame your opponent for everything you do yourself. I bet that you won't even check the points where I have proven you wrong, since it might cause you to think for yourself.
I think Gandhi may have something to say about that. Clearly, even in very difficult situations there are still peaceful alternatives which may prove effective.
I didn't say I agree, but I do understand why people act like this. Of course, I would like people to be wiser, but Gandhi is so famous for a reason: he is an exception.
Besides, what on earth are the suicide bombers' military objective? Do they honestly expect the Israelis to capitulate by using methods to terrorize and infuriate them?! No, they only have the selfish desire to kill for their own glory, getting to heaven, and terrorizing their enemy. At least Gandhi was playing to win.
Of course, you can say mostly the same about Israel. They use collective punishment extensively (unfair treatment at checkpoints, destroying private property of innocents & people who have not been convicted for any crimes and extensive harassment in general). Another awful method is simply assassinating people (often with innocent victims as well). The official policy is to weaken the Palestinian leadership whenever possible (and then claim that they aren't stopping terrorism) and to create 'facts on the ground'. The latter means that at every new negotiation there are more problems to solve and that Israel offers even less to the Palestinians.
So how is this playing to win? IMHO, both sides are desperately trying not to lose, which explains the death spiral they are locked into.
The Palestinians are having the opposite effect, hardening feelings both of Israel supporters and those of people who formally were sympathetic to their cause.
Well, Israel could also have chosen a far less agressive and more sympathetic route. I think that the biased US media have taught you to look at this in a very one-sided way, but I really don't think that only one party is to blame in this conflict.
I still feel that the Japanese valued life, namely their own.
I disagree, unless 'own' means the Japanese people in general. At that time, Japanese soldiers were taught that they had to be loyal to the emperor, similar to the samurai's obligation to his master (which goes much, much further than simple servitude). I still think the Japanese culture is very f*cked up. Germany really changed after WWII and repented for their crimes, but Japan still finds it hard to apologize for their misdeeds.
However, as you pointed out, they would also kill themselves out of their honor code. This seems to be the biggest difference between the Japanese and Palestinian cultures to me.
Honor is usually a (somewhat) refined form of collective morals, found in societies without a centralized body of law and a good justice system. Palestine is simply too young to have developed a common honor system, but they may be guided by certain moral obligations (just like Iraqi's may revenge a killed clan member, if they aren't compensated).
Anyway, I don't why it's better to kill someone because of honor, instead of deciding for yourself that it is the right thing to do.
Clearly, their honor code only applied to Japanese opponents
No, they applied their honor code to the western soldiers too. According to their military code, a soldier should fight until death or commit suicide if they have lost (in the beginning of the war, almost no Japanese soldiers surrendered). POWs were treated especially harshly because they didn't follow this honor code (and 'cheated' death).
Worst of all they are teaching their children that it is OK to hate and loath and do anything to kill "the enemy," whoever they may be.
Israel is doing the same thing. Ron Furer wrote a book about it.
And they are having as many children as possible simply for the purpose of using them as human bombs and bullets against "the enemy."
This is pure FUD. There is no evidence that Palestinians get many children for that purpose.
There's a world of difference between the Kami Kaze suicide fighters of WW2 who gave their lives against military targets and ones who simply bomb anyone who is opposed to their beliefs (whether they be women, children or even bystanders who even share the beliefs of the bomber).
That is highly debatable. When you have little chance of hurting your opponent and surviving it, you might as well choose a suicide attack. When even that doesn't work against the military, why not attack the civilian population? It makes perfect sense if you are desperately struggling against an oppressor. Japan simply never had that option since they could never target the US mainland (or at least not later in the war). We do know that Japan had extremely little respect for human lives at that time, they killed millions of forced laborers by working them to death*. I don't think they would have had any moral hesitations about killing US civilians.
*http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
Did any of those Kami Kaze pilots look forward to their own demise?
They did what they were told (for the most part). You mustn't forget that Japanese people do not tend to be individualists. Honor and the well-being of the group to whome they belong is very important. Schoolkids learn about the samurai who avenged their master's death and then committed (honorable) suicide. Furthermore, suicide is quite common in Japan. In the US, people are much more likely to strike at other when they feel at the end of their rope (Columbine & many other shootings by disgruntled people), in Japan people kill themselves in similar situations.
This also relates directly to your next point:...suicide bombers clearly don't value life as much as others and even seem eager to blow themselves up.
This is more of a cultural issue. The US Rangers have got the motto "leave no man behind". This means that they will risk their lives to get everyone, even dead bodies, back home. You can make the point that this also means that those soldiers don't value life. Why else would they risk the group for one individual, even worse, one who cannot be saved.
Do you understand that this is totally foreign to people from a culture in which the collective is very important?
As for history, it is commonly held that the Muslim religion is still in its "dark age" period while it is concurrently recognized that Christianity has long since emerged from its dark ages.
The allies attacked 'almost completely random civilian targets' when they believed that air raids on military targets were unsuccessful. Is that enlightened? And how civilized was the use of the atomic bomb to attack two cities filled with civilians? Then I haven't started yet on crimes committed by the nazi's.
It's hard to argue that Christians are any more civilized from a military perspective.
Your last paragraph refers to my original question of whether it would be better to believe that others are going to hell and doing nothing about it or having that same belief and doing something about it. Just because a person doesn't tell you that you're going to burn in hell doesn't mean they don't believe it. How on earth is that nicer than trying to save you?
I'm afraid that people will try to save me/civilization/the world/whatever by hurting other people. It has happened so many times in the past that beliefs and ideologies have led people to commit the most horrendous crimes. I'd rather have those people appreciate that others might differ in opinion and do not want to be forcibly 'saved' (or sacrificed).
Behaving unethically based on your belief/ideology is very dangerous. One can easily slide into extremism this way.
-- The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Pardon me for not trying to be funny, but George W. Bush doesn't use a computer unless he absolutely has to.
I'd hope the president doesn't waste his time playing games or hacking the kernel. A president that uses a computer is already way ahead of most politicians. Besides, I think that most non-geeks only use a computer when they have to.
He also doesn't watch television unless it's sports
I can't blame him. Much rather read the newspaper myself.
He doesn't like to use the telephone, he doesn't use cell-phones, and so on.
Nor do I. I like to think about things before I respond and not to be interrupted in the middle of my work. Does that make me a luddite?
All of this should be no surprise for someone who doesn't even read the news himself, and has his advisors act as a "news filter" for him so he only hears and learns about what he wants to hear and learn about, or what his advisors want him to hear or learn about.
I think that this is a problem for any president. There are so many decisions to be made about a multitude of topics, that no single man can fully understand let alone research them. While I know quite a bit about computers and some other topics, I'm fairly ignorant on quite a few other issues. I'm sure the same goes for you.
Ideally, the president should surround himself with experts, who can help him with the topics he's ignorant about. A good example is Howard Dean, who has Lessig as an advisor. Dean may be totally ignorant about copyrights, but if he listens to Lessig, that doesn't matter to me at all. In the end, it's about the decisions that get made.
Why not? It doesn't mean he's dumb, it means he's not good at delivering written speeches. An actor would be the best president by that measure (OK, Reagan).
Bush represents the US government, both nationally and internationally. That means that he should be able to express believable empathy and explain government policy somewhat coherently. I respect the fact that not everyone can give a speech like Clinton or Reagan, but Bush can't even do better than the average Frenchman who tries to speak English. My ears bleed after I hear him utter a few puzzling phrases.
Other than that, I hate just about every decision his administration has made (or the way they implemented those decisions). The fact that there are no redeeming factors only increases the disgust.
Heh, yeah, like the two-party system is about getting the most qualified man into the job...
Indeed. You have the choice between two corrupt parties and the people they nominate. I'm glad that I can choose between multiple parties over here (Holland). There is still plenty to complain about, but at least a newcomer has a chance to threaten the status quo.
It's not even reliable for a willing and cooperative subject. Read up on the subject. The polygrapher assumes that subjects are lying on certain questions and assumes that you lie if your body gives a larger polygraph response to other questions.
Those assumptions aren't and never will be proven, because there are so many variables that are not accounted for:
- You may actually be telling the truth on the questions where they assume you to lie. - Stress-levels can increase during the interview. Your body responses can change in time, unrelated to the questions asked. - Your reaction when answering a relevant question truthfully may be bigger than when you lie on an innocent question. You may get very upset when asked whether you are a terrorist because it makes you remember a family member that died during 9/11. - Plenty more that I forgot.
Finally, if you use countermeasures, you can create a perfect polygraph interrogation. Any serious spy/terrorist will spend some time to learn this if he needs to take a polygraph test. The end result is that the polygraph test is only effective as a interrogation tool. Some subjects are so intimidated that they confess to something (or are tricked by the polygrapher). A lot of innocent subjects do get burned because the polygraphers don't limit themselves to intimidating. Instead, they fail the people whose reactions don't conform.
Slashdot Mirror
it always amuses me that that argument of financial sense only applies to alternate energy devices. Just about very single other consumer product out there doesn't have that distinction.
That is because energy is different. It is a consumable which only provides value when used by a device and which differs little from a consumer perspective. The consumer just wants it to be available and cheap, very few people are willing to pay for 'green' electricity. It's just the same for gas, how many people would voluntarily buy Kyoto-gas at 100% markup? In short, the reality of the market (capitalism and all that) is that green energy needs to be cheap _or_ dirty energy needs to become more expensive (through taxes, scarcity or whatever).
This is not negated by people like you who like to do things different. No offence, but most people don't want to go through the effort that you went through. Hoping that other people will change just isn't realistic.
No one should have ever bought a personal computer, because they weren't "cost effective" and not "there" yet back in the day.
First of all, they were cost-effective to many people. In fact, I would say that this was especially true for the first group of users, who were big businesses. Those guys don't invest in something without cost effectiveness in mind. More importantly though, people were willing to pay for these newfangled things. In the end, that is all what matters from an adoption standpoint. Now, if you can convince many more people to create/use/buy green energy without improving the cost effectiveness, I will applaud you. However, I just don't think that this is possible.
Of course, the key to communicating is a common frame of reference. The key question in this thread is whether pictures or language are better for communicating. The existence of people with handicaps is a totally separate issue. While important, usability for a handicapped person is inherently different from usability for a 'regular' person.
Personally I think that pictures are easier to parse, but less accurate. As such, a mix is probably best, using language for complexer elements of the interface and pictures for those which are easy to understand. That way, you reduce the complexity of the interface, while maintaining a fair amount of accuracy.
Maybe. I think tradition is a part of it, but seeing the relatively low numbers that turn up with eletions in the Netherlands for example, I am not so sure if peopel can really handle the choice better.
Voter turnout in The Netherlands is higher than in the US.
Question is, what is better, someone voting on a side while they just don't know but its what their environment does as well, or people not voting because they dont know.
People who don't think for themselves, but simply copy others are not improving the result of the election. They are simply distorting the result. It seems that in the US, this group has become a majority of the voters. The end result is that politicians stop caring about being positive, but move to a smear campaign, since the 'copiers' can only be persuaded not to vote for the other candidate. A consistent and intelligent set of standpoints is not that important anymore, because you can't convince the copiers anyway. In The Netherlands, this seems to be much less the case.
comparing the Christian viewpoint (as presented in the Bible and throughout history) against with how people (individually and as a collective human race) behave.
Again, those kind of statements are quite meaningless from a scientific viewpoint. Assuming that you accept the Bible as a non-historical document (if you don't, you can simply be proven wrong since some 'facts' taken from the bible can be proven not to be true), it's impossible to 'test' your statement.
Humans have some of this 'creator' ability: we can think of objects and make them - the difference is we cannot create things out of nothing; that is, we have to have some raw materials.
I disagree that nothingness does not contain raw materials. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, (virtual) particles can be produced in an absolute vacuum and their existence has physical consequences, such as the radiation of black holes (but virtual particles cannot be a real source of new particles). Secondly, current theory is that matter was originated from an atomic particle/entity which expanded (the big bang). Since we cannot look beyond the big bang, we don't know how the matter was created. There may be a meta-universe which automatically creates virtual particles with a large amount of energy. Such a particle may expand to a universe (in alternate dimensions). Perhaps after a while (in our universe, billions of years), our particle-based universe merges with a anti-particle universe and we are gone again.
Of course, I'm making things up. However, I could be right and then no God is needed to explain the creation of the universe. So why don't you just leave the option open? Why are you so certain that a creator is involved?
but that if God so willed he could un-create the universe. Humans have some of this power - we can un-create some man-made structures and even eliminate some ideas from the common thought of mankind.
If you limit God's role to ending the universe, what is the point in believing in him? Once he manifests himself, you are gone (and everything else you care about). If he doesn't, his role as sustainer (although I would call it 'destroyer') is totally irrelevant to you.
Or do you believe that God actively interferes with our universe?
Some of the following definition, as opposed to the first two, definitely hinges on faith. It is also the definition which is, as far as I know, the most difficult to define. I am actually going to use an anthropomorphic definition and simply state that 'universe' is the reality in which we exist, the nature of which we debate as being independent of itself or dependent upon the existence of God. This is not a "complete" definition by any means, but it basically means "everything that would have to have been created, if it was a created thing".
Do you mean the start-conditions of this world? For instance, there are some basic laws & constants which cannot be reduced further. Do you claim that God created those, for instance, because of their beauty (a common argument among christian scientists)? Personally, I don't feel it is necessary to have God to create beautiful things, because I have seen many pretty things which were created by scientifically explainable phenomena.
With that preface done, I'll say what I believe to be the character of what I mean by God. I'll not go into why I believe all these things because that would increase the length of this post several times. My intent is to clarify my statement, "I believe in God".
The major character traits of God I believe are: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, holy, just, creative, relational, and loving. I'll try to define each of these briefly. (And I'm sure I've left a few other "major" characteristics out with which others may be familiar).
[...]
Loving: this is one thing that people always bring up when talking about God, but it is meaningless without the other features of God. How can you be loving if you're not just
I think, though, that they are a little unnerved by the fact that all these great, objective, scientific minds arrived at the conclusion that a god exists.
No, I think that most people read it as an argument from authority. I think you would get similar responses if the sig was:
"Linus Thorvalds, Bruce Perens and RMS all vote Democrat."
This either means they have to wonder what these "great minds" were smoking or what they themselves are smoking to not see it.
There are those who cannot accept that smart people can believe in God. I'm not one of those, nevertheless, I don't think that the sig contains very good examples. Take Galileo for instance, he was living in a time when freedom of religion did not exist and the church kicked him around pretty badly when he published 'atheist' theories. Even after Enlightment, a choice for atheism often had negative consequences (and still has for some people). Even if someone didn't believe in God, it may have been wise to pretend they did. In short, it's hardly certain that all of the people on the list really believe in God or chose so freely.
A second problem is that God is not a well-defined concept. If you define 'God' as the structure of the world, then many atheists would 'believe' in that. Einstein used this definition when he said that "God does not play dice." Still, Einstein has always said that he didn't believe in a religious God.
I'm sure that you can easily come up with a list of contemporary western scientist who freely believe in a religious God, but the parent's sig is pretty meaningless as it is.
I myself am in the "Everything I have seen leads me to believe in God" camp of thought. If you want to know more of how people can *gasp* actually arrive at this conclusion, I'm sure myself or Doesn't_Comment_Code will be happy to entertain any legitimate conversation.
How do you define God? What is his relationship with 'everything you have seen.' Unless you answer those questions, your statement is completely meaningless.
The problem with this idea is that the rug may be pulled out from under you. Say you spend $$$ to restore an old movie and press thousands of DVDs. After the C&D, you have to destroy those DVDs and you don't get compensated for your hard work. Or what if you want to sample an old song? If the artists complains, you may have to destroy all CDs. How are _you_ going to get compensated for all the work involved in creating the new song? So your idea doesn't really help those who want to do more than make a simple copy.
I think we need a registration every X years. You get 5 or 10 years for free and after that you have to register and pay a small fee for an extension. You can keep on extending until the maximum copyright term.
Indeed, it's weird that so many people (including many 'scientists') are only interested in justifying the current situation. The only acceptable outcome is 9 (or 8) planets and the theory must fit this outcome. Well, I guess that Kuhn was right when he said that paradigms die hard. Of course, the problem is that we don't really have a good criterium. Stern's criterium may be one of the best, but I still don't see why the roundness should be the most important criterium. Still, at least it's non-arbitrary and I'm sure we will come up with something better as we learn more about the birth of solar systems.
I don't think the US could find any reasonable justification to attack Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait or Venezuela. The only other OPEC countries which produce more than a thousand barrels a day are Libya, Iran, Iraq and Nigeria. It is questionable whether the US would be able to start a war again in the future just over oil and to keep a new regime in place. The backlash over Iraq is very bad for the US and the regime change is not going very well either (and it is a very costly affair). Furthermore, even if we assume that these countries can be forced to keep the dollar, they still only total 15% of the world's oil production. Let's assume that North-America will also keep the dollar, for another 20% of the oil production. That leaves 65% of the oil producers which may freely move to the euro (one of the biggest producers, Russia is introducing the euro already).
I think you've proved my point. You have not spent your time listing comparisons where OS 9 is "better in some respects", you have spent your time "bashing" OS X. (And no, you did not mis-state it, you have been bashing.)
Again, you said: "Most of the "mistakes" I've read about boil down to simply operating differently." That statement allows me to bash OS X and ask you to make a good case that this is not a mistake, but a different way of working (or you can claim that the problem doesn't exist in OS X). Lambasting me for taking this approach is dishonest, because you (basically) asked for it.
I've tried to give several examples to make things concrete, but I don't remember anywhere you've unequivicaly admitted that even a single one was valid.
I've said that interleaving windows is more natural for a document-centric philosophy. That means that I agree with you that OS X is operating differently in that case. So there I agreed with you that this is not a mistake. However, you were so focused on bashing OS 9 for moving all windows of the application to the front, that you failed to notice this.
I've also agreed with you that the application menu is an improvement, not a mistake. The fact that I also pointed out that the implementation is somewhat flawed might have caused you to gloss over this point.
I still disagree that a do-it-all dock is a conceptual improvement, because I don't believe that one widget can provide all that functionality. I also don't believe that the OS X Finder is a conceptual improvement, if only because there is no real philosophy behind it. OS 9 did not make these mistakes, because:
- different widgets were provided (you may think that the OS 9 widgets suck, but then we are talking about implementation, not about the OS's operating differently)
- the OS 9 Finder effectively provided a spatial file management environment (which you may dislike, but that's simply because you don't like the concept, not because of 'mistakes').
Here you're saying "some", but again, you've argued as if you mean "all". My "most" and your "some" can co-exist quite nicely, you know. Those two phrases for quantity are not mutually exclusive.
That is true and I would not have responded in this way if your tone was different. However, your original post showed no consideration whatsoever for some of the serious issues that do exist. That might also have to do with the oft-repeated mantra by OS X zealots that complaints about OS X are all due to inflexibility, which irritates me mightily. In my eyes, your original post was in the same vein.
I'm still considering whether you or I are to blame for this perception. Probably both. Next time I will try not to jump the gun too easily, but you might want to also consider a less hostile writing style.
This is revisionist history at its worst (best?). MacOS was document-centric from the start. That was the major difference from DOS and its other predecessors: you didn't invoke a program with a document as an argument, you opened a document and magically the correct application ran so you could manipulate it.
Then please explain to me why the application's menu bar is not attached to the document. That is the only sensible place for a purely document-centric OS. A lot of software on Windows has got the application menu inside the document window. Closing the document means closing the application. On the Mac, closing the last document usually does not close the application. Even if it would, the interface does not make it clear (where it is very clear in the screenshot I provided).
Another example of application-centric design is that you first start an application and then create a document. A document-centric OS would allow you to create a document independent of an application, for instance in the Finder by using a conte
I am the one that is saying the new is, on the whole, better than the old.
No, what you said is that there are hardly any serious problems with OS X ('It's not a bug, but a feature'): "Most of the "mistakes" I've read about boil down to simply operating differently."
Then you argued that the people who think that certain OS 9 features are better than their OS X counterparts are zealots: "But OS 9's GUI has achieved sacred status in the minds of the inflexible and so you can't argue with them."
What I'm saying is that there are some serious problems with OS X, some of which didn't exist or were less a problem on OS 9.
You are the one defending pen and paper.
No, what I am saying is that we should work on the problems of the new technology. You can do that by either going back to what worked well previously or improve the new technology. The problem is that, according to you, the problems do not really exists and suggesting that OS 9 was better in some respects makes me a zealot.
First, you say elsewhere that you only want to point out that some features of OS 9 are better than some features of OS X. But you insist in either defending every difference to the end, or you dismiss improvements you can't argue with by saying, "it's not exactly world-shattering". This goes way beyond trying to point out a few advantages of OS 9.
The problem is that I disagree with many of the problems that you see in OS 9 and the other examples are usually not that important in my view. That does not mean that I don't see major problems with OS 9 (compared to OS X). I do, but you have not talked about:
- Stability
- Preemptive multitasking
- Unix underpinnings
- Java support
- etc.
I think their interests are better served with a trashcan that is always visible and accessible (MacOS X) rather than a trashcan that is always in the same place, but not always visible or accessible (MacOS 9). Yes, a floating widget would be more useful, but last I checked, OS 9 was farther from having this than OS X, so how does this count as a criticism of OS X in comparison to OS 9? Again, you're going way beyond what you claim to be doing.
The trashcan in the dock is a bad solution, IMHO. If you use it frequently, you would probably prefer a static target. If you don't, you probably want to hide it (which you cannot do without hiding the entire dock). Now, I never said that OS 9 got it right, you just put those words in my mouth. I do like that the trashcan is only visible in the Finder in OS 9, because that's the only place where you use it.
The reason why I'm bashing OS X on this issue is that OS X made the trashcan an issue for me, where it wasn't before.
Anyway, I'll just pretend that we're having an open discussion about the problems in OS X and how to improve them.
Please list some more of the "great many". From the discussion so far, it's more like "fixed a great many and created some". (In your eyes, the "some" are larger than the "many", but I've seen no indication of the numberical imbalance you imply.
Writing a paper on all the problems is too much work for me, so I'll refer you to the Arstechnica articles on OS X. You can find plenty of problems there.
Why did I have the even stronger need for Drag Thing with OS 9? Would you be willing to say this stronger need indicates a worse interface design? The fact is in MacOS 9 I needed three or four Drag Thing palettes to do the work that only requires one Drag Thing palette (plus Finder and the Dock) in MacOS X 10.3. This is a dramatic improvement, which you can't bring yourself to acknowledge. You seem to insist on severely criticizing MacOS X doing better than MacOS 9 but not perfect.
I agree that there was a serious problem with easy access to a 'shortlist' of applications and documents in OS 9. I never claimed that this was not true and I used a haxie to fix that.
However, my complaint is that the dock is bad a
Or more precisely, you (and other vocal critics) can't adapt to them. Many of us are doing just fine.
This is a flawed argument. Some people are still using exclusively pen & paper and are doing fine. That doesn't mean that pen & paper is suitable for the work I want to do or that I shouldn't desire something better.
I'm not saying the old shortcut was totally broken in the context of the old Finder. I'm saying that the old Finder's shortcut worked differently from CMD-N in every app I've ever used and is thus broken in the context of the MacOS GUI.
No, like I said before, in the old Finder, a window cannot be seperated from a folder. A window shows a certain folder and only one window can show that folder at one time. Creating a new window does not make sense. What should it show (especially when you do 'new window' twice)? Creating a new folder makes sense, because a folder is the key metaphore around which the old Finder resolves. It is the best choice for 'create new document'. A window is just the representation of a folder, so it's not central to a spatial Finder.
You weren't implying you were smarter, but you did immediately leap to the conclusion that I must surely be using fewer windows/apps than you.
I was being cynical. That's not leaping to conclusions.
Yes, the Dock is sub-optimal for managing dozens of windows/folders, though not applications. I can't think of an OS 9 alternative that was better. Two programs that were must-haves under OS9 and still are in OS X: 1) Drag Thing, and 2) Default Folder.
Drag Thing is basically a different kind of dock. The question is: why do people (including you) feel the need to have seperate dock in addition to the dock they already have? The only reasonable conclusion is bad interface design. The dock cannot properly perform one of its key features and the result is that people now have two different kinds of docks on their desktop. That is extremely inconsistent, a waste of screen space and the worst kind of haxie to fix the GUI (didn't you bash haxies before?).
OS 9 may have had only a weak type of dock (pop-up windows), but you could completely ignore that feature and/or just use Drag Thing. OS X is extremely inflexible because you are stuck with the crappy dock. IMO, the dock doesn't really excel at any of its features, in no small part because it tries to be everything for everyone. The result is that I prefer a haxie for just about every feature it supposedly offers.
If you rarely use it, being a static target doesn't matter much.
I think that many other users do drag stuff to the trash. I was looking out for their interests. Anyway, the point was that such a widget would much more flexible.
It boils down to this: you had twisted yourself around OS 9's dozens of inconsistencies, limitations, and bugs and it worked well for you. OS X has fixed most of those (five steps forward) but broken two or three of your favorite things so you trash it.
No, OS X fixed some of these and created a great many more. My favorite widgets earned that status by making my life easier. The OS X interface removed them and replaced them with something which is worse. That is why I complain.
Actually, it is broken. The direct manipulation metaphor says that when you click on something, you are selecting that something. Not that something and "related" somethings. It's inconsistent from the way selection works in all other contexts in all other apps. That means it's broken.
No, dragging should always result in a selection. Clicking can have many responses, such as pressing a button or placing a cursor. Clicking has never been used consistently (in any OS), so you cannot claim that OS 9 was inconsistent.
But it was convenient and necessary in an OS that was actually designed for uni-tasking, not multi-tasking.
No, it has got nothing to with with uni- or multi-tasking. OS 9 and OS X are appli
Please, just because I list three or four does not mean that there are only three or four.
Sure, but these problems aren't exactly world-shattering. Using the File-menu for app-related stuff isn't too bad as long as it is wrong consistently. You learn it once and then you can deal with it. The level of problems in OS X that I talked about is much more serious IMHO because you can't really adapt to them.
I could list many more, but I thought I could make my point my listing a few that OS-9-ers insist are broken by OS X when in fact they were fixed.
I've never heard people claim that the application-menu is a bad idea (although they may disagree with the implementation). Using a new shortcut for creating a folder is a different case, because it basically hinges around the design of the Finder. The old Finder was spatial, which means that it attempts to give a 'real' representation of your files. Creating a new window does not really fit into that paradigm, since views do not exist. Windows equal folders and you create a new window by opening an existing folder. Creating a window an sich is appropriate for a 'browser' Finder, which just shows you a specific view of your files. There you can create a view which shows the same folder as another window, so there is no 1-on-1 relationship between folders and windows. This has certain advantages and certain disadvantages, which I won't go into at the moment. Suffice it to say that both are useful, but you cannot use them at the same time, since some features are mutually exclusive.
Anyway, the problem is that Apple did away with the spatial Finder and replaced it by a partially browser, partially spatial abomination. A good example of the problems you get is that it's nearly impossible to understand the view options of windows. John Siracusa has asked for consistent Finder which seperates the spatial and the browser elements in seperate modes, so that things actually work consistently and you have the best of both worlds instead of the worst.
At the moment, the fact that the OS X Finder is neither purely spatial or browser-based means that the new keyboard shortcut is broken. The old one was not broken in the OS 9 (since it is suitable to a spatial Finder), but it would be broken in the OS X Finder.
Ooo, hoo, hoo, who made you so smart? Just goes to show that all curmudgeons are the same. They all apparently assume that they've been using MacOS longer and that they use it harder than anyone else.
I never claimed that using more apps makes me smarter, better or whatever. The problem is that the dock cannot really cope with such a workflow. It's so overloaded that it works best if you use just a few apps (there is a reason why Apple's screenshots always show just a few apps). People like me go in the territory where the dock sucks. I don't believe that I'm unreasonable when I desire to use a lot of apps and documents and still want to use the features that the dock supposedly offers. Or do you want to claim that the dock is still as effective when you want fast access to 30 apps and 30 documents (where many docs have the same icon)?
BTW, the problem is not that I "operate differently". You can use that excuse for everything. A software developer can claim that a crash after selecting a menu item is caused by me 'operating differently', because other people don't select that menu option.
Awww... And MacOS 9's solution of having the trashcan on the desktop -- where it's either inaccessible or you have to warp your style to make sure it's always visible -- is better?
In OS 9, I only touched the trashcan when I wanted to deal with already deleted files (also use the shortcut). The easiest solution was just to hide all apps and open the can on the desk
Remember, the OS 9 GUI was originally designed for a uni-tasking computer with a tiny screen. It was brilliant. But over the years, more and more features were welded on, Frankenstein-style and it ended up being inconsistent and unwieldy. Curmudgeons now bitterly complain that it was better, but it sucked in so many ways...
Please, the inconsistencies were relatively minor considering the history. I mean, a menu which is overloaded and an inconsistent keyboard shortcut isn't exactly world shattering. MacOS X contains some big interface issues and it doesn't have this excuse.
Most of the "mistakes" I've read about boil down to simply operating differently.
Of course, using the OS differently can mean that you aren't bothered by some problems. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. For example, using the name of the application for the application menu sucks because the first few menu's will be in a different location for every application. It's well researched that keeping widgets in the same location makes it easier to use them.
The same goes for the dock. You can only lock down one side, which means that either your regular apps will move or your trashcan will. Furthermore, there is no way to have a consistent placement for documents. These problems could be solved by splitting the dock in sections, but we cannot even replace the dock by a custom one since the dock is too deeply integration with the OS (by opening the API, people could build a better dock).
And why is Apple using a metal skin for the Finder? Is that consistent?
I could go on, but I point you to John Siracuse's reviews at Arstechnica for other (IMHO) valid criticism. There is even an entire article about problems with the new Finder.
But OS 9's GUI has achieved sacred status in the minds of the inflexible and so you can't argue with them.\
The thing is that I could easily mod OS 9 into an incredibly efficient interface. I would love to have an interface with OS X that would be just as pleasant to use. Unfortunately, the current interface is lacking, even with a dozen mods. Added problem are the people who cannot accept that you might not like what they drool over. They argue that people like us 'just don't use it right'. Thing is, I am flexible and willing to change, but the alternative should be good enough. Just because you only use five applications for your work, doesn't mean that I shouldn't use thirty regularly. And using thirty apps, plus having a few documents minimized makes the dock a pretty crappy tool. And how do you temporarily store ten folders so you can access them easily? The dock doesn't show the difference, so I would have to memorize their position or slow down and wait for the tooltips (productivity--). Minimizing folders to their toolbar wasn't perfect either, but at least I can easily find them again. Furthermore, I want to know which apps I'm running. Using the dock, this means that I have to scan all my thirty apps and see which one has got a small triangle underneath it. The application dock in OS 9 is much faster to use.
You can call me inflexible until you're blue in the face, but I actually tried the alternatives and I tried to like them. The big problem is that the alternatives suck.
Could you explain to me how giving away a browser benefitted Microsoft?
Microsoft doesn't give the browser away, you pay for it when you buy a copy of Windows. You can no longer choose to pocket that money or spend it on a competing product, because you are forced to buy the bundle if you want Windows. That is anti-competitive, because Windows is a monopoly. That means that many people cannot reasonably choose a competing OS where you don't have to pay for the browser. In short, many consumers are forced to pay for IE. This is unfair to competitors as well, because they don't have the option of making you pay for their browser even when you don't want to use it.
BSD style is friendly towards proprietary software[...]those goals might include something like allowing some to take freedom from their users?
Your logic is flawed, since it also be used to promote a police state. Due process of law, public trials and no torture coerced confessions can all hinder the prosecution of criminals (and are thus 'friendly' towards criminals). However, I feel that the downsides of a police state are too great.
Proprietary code can lead to abuse, but there are also a great many closed source applications with which I have no problem. I also feel that the GPL is far from perfect for every situation and that some software would never be build if the GPL was the only option. So I simply don't think that the abuse of software users is important enough to accept these downsides.
You're mixing apple with oranges. Are trying to deliberatly influence others into thinking I'm agains Democracy? I seriously hope not.
No, the point is that popularity can be immensely important. In that regard, popularity can be a very important goal if you want to achieve something (assuming a hierarchy of goals).
People don't vote because they are popular but because it's their right to participate in Democracy, and voting on THAT guy only because he is popular is a perversion of Democracy. You should vote on the guy who you think represents your interests best.
That's not what I meant. My point is that a democracy only works if voting is popular. It cannot work if only an elite few bother or are able to vote. In the context of democracy, popularity is not shallow.
Your problem is that you confuse goal with reward. Stallman's goal: freedom for _all_ (yes, all, that's why GPL is so important), not just those who got the code with a Free license like BSD.
His reward: popularity for being one of the most important freedom fighters of nowadays.
Every reward can be a goal. I can't judge RMS' ego, but personal popularity is desired by many, so he might see that as one of his goals. But anyway, that was not the kind of popularity I was talking about. I was talking about popularizing the GPL, which seems to be a valid goal to you.
Oh really? Let's look at your examples:
- Spreading good code
Spreading -> popularity
- Popularizing a certain standard, concept, etc.
Popularizing -> popularity
- More people contribute
More people -> popularity
- Personal satisfaction
If your goal is popularity, of course you'll be satisfied, all you said were goals of popularity, and none of doing something good which results in popularity...
'Spreading good code' uses the popularity of software components to increase the quality of software. Popularity is a means.
'Popularizing a certain standard, concept, etc' is what you do when you want people to use something great. A good example is the TCP/IP-stack. Once upon a time that was new and a BSD'd TCP/IP-stack made it easier for that standard to spread. The end-goal might be to allow computers to communicate. Popularizing TCP/IP is a means to reach that goal.
'More people contribute' to improve the product in one way or another. The end-goal is that the value of the product increases. An example is the open sourcing of Linux, Linus could never have done all the work himself to get Linux to where it is today. Popularity is a means to get these contributions.
'Personal satisfaction' is especially important to open source developers who work in their spare time. Helping people seems like a worthy goal to me and the more popular your software is, the happier you may feel about your work (since you help more people).
Popularity is always the means to reach another goal in these cases.
all you said were goals of popularity, and none of doing something good which results in popularity...
I hope that you changed your mind about that.
Wrong. Stallman wants to impell PROPRIETARY towards freedom for their users, since readline is so useful, it has made some sofware become GPL because of it.
No, producing GPL'ed libraries compels every non-GPL developer to GPL their code (so they can use that library). There is no exception for (say) BSD developers and you can hardly call them proprietary (using caps doesn't change that).
All software should be free as in freedom, so I completely fail to see the problem here.
That's your personal conviction, but I want to leave that choice up to consumers & developers. As a developer, I may choose a less restrictive license than the GPL because it suits my goals better. I don't particular fancy another argument over why Free is better than free, but it helps if you at least appreciate that other people may not share your views on this matter.
Popularity is a shallow goal
No, it isn't. Many great things can only be achieved by popularity. Democracy can only work if most people are allowed to vote and do so. A well educated populace is also highly desired and can only be reached by having a 'popular' education system. I also don't think that RMS considers popularity something beneath contempt, since he would be happy to have all the software GPL'ed.
Perhaps you wanted to point out that popularity should never be the end goal, but it never is. There is always some underlying reason, in the case of BSD-like licenses:
- Spreading good code
- Popularizing a certain standard, concept, etc.
- More people contribute
- Personal satisfaction
These are all perfectly valid reasons. There is nothing shallow about any of them.
This is why the US treasury has announced that they will start redesigning bills every few years.
One of the major problems with this is that it makes it harder for people to detect false currency. Unless the treasury makes the old notes obsolete (and have you exchange them for new ones), you will have many different bank note designs in circulation (including rare, old ones). How will you know what an old bill is supposed to look like? There is a good chance that you will accept a good fake, because you will think that it's an old bill.
Isn't it better to just have a radical redesign every 25-50 years? Then people will really focus on the new features. As a bonus, you can obsolete the old bills after a few years. The bills which aren't swapped for new ones result in some extra government income.
When the U.S. gets a coalition together, it must be because they were blackmailed or bribed.
No, not 'must be'. A pretty good case can be made that at least some of the nations were coerced into joining. That report doesn't address some of the post-war issues, such as only giving rebuilding contracts to coalition members (instead of going with the cheapest bidder). Those contracts are paid in part by Iraqi oil, which means that the coalition spends Iraqi money in their own interests, 'paying' countries for their support.
Unfortunately, I really do think you're myopic and naive enough to actually believe your own argument whilst simultaneously ignoring everyone else's.
I don't ignore your arguments, I disprove them. Do I need to explain the difference?
However, so long as the main Palestinian militant group (Hamas) has the stated position of essentially driving the Israelis into the sea, never even proposing more than a temporary truce, and has the support of the Palestinians this conflict will never end as far as I can tell.
Hamas has grown over time to be far more important in no small part because of Israel's policy of marginalizing the Palestinian Authorities. If you face a group who cannot be bargained with, the proper strategy is to weaken them, not to strengthen them by attacking a more moderate group. Israel has done the latter, which pretty much guarantees a continued conflict.
Many Palestinians support Hamas because they are desperate. Those people can be won back to a peaceful solution if they believe that peace can be achieved (on reasonable terms). The difficult part is to give them new hope (which cannot be done by a Palestinian organization on its own).
The Israelis are occupying a rather small area compared to most nations and, like the Palestinians, have nowhere else to go.
Israel is very strong militarily and if the survival of Israel is at stake, I think that they would probably get support from at least the US. Besides, quite a few of its citizens have dual nationality AFAIK. The Palestines are worse off in every respect (less territory, really no place to go, few natural resources (water), little military strength and no strong allies).
There is not a way to punish a suicide bomber after the fact and difficult to stop them before hand, so what would you have them do?
You push towards peace even harder. Every time Israel stops the negotiations, assassinates someone or closes the borders in retaliation, they strengthen Hamas. It is folly to think that the proper response to violence is to strike back as hard as you can. If both parties do that, continued escalation is inevitable. Believing that the other party will give up their tactics, while you cannot imagine doing that yourself, is pretty illogical.
Choosing the path of peace is incredibly difficult however. It's sad that Rabin died because he did not only understand that the death spiral had to be broken, but he also had the strength of leadership to do so.
And PLEASE don't tell me that simply having them back out of Gaza and the West Bank will miraculously solve all of the problems.
Restoring faith will require concessions. Once upon a time the Palestinian Authorities where taking control of Gaza and the West Bank, building up a police force, trying to get the economy into gear. Building up a country from scratch takes time and money, but Israel got impatient and started attacking the PA. I still think that peace could have been achieved if Israel was more supportive of the nation building going on.
Of course, the same thing can be done again, based on a truce with Hamas and extensive support from EU & US. Unfortunately, people often lack the stamina that is required for long term solutions (especially in todays world where we go from hype to hype).
Sharon visiting the Temple Mount, boy that sure is something worth sacrificing thousands of lives to prevent
It was a highly deliberate provocation when tensions were running high. The Temple Mount is very important to Muslims and the visit was a strong claim to the site. Of course, you cannot simply claim that the intifada was intended to keep Sharon away. The visit was the last drop that convinced the Palestinian leaders that peace with Israel was not possible.
BTW, I read something interesting about Temple Mount, but I cannot confirm it.
There is no bias when I say that the Palestinians are loosing sympathy in the West as there is some evidence proving that this is likely.
My impression is that in Europe, people are becoming more critical of Israel, although that doesn't mean that support is growing
Oddly enough, it seems like it's mostly backwater, third-world nations with nothing to lose and everything to gain by signing this treaty!
Like France, Germany, the UK, Spain, China? I could go on, but you probably think that India, Italy, Brazil and Argentina are backwater nations (not that I think that every American is ignorant, I only feel that way about you).
Bush-hating, Saddam-loving liberals
Sigh. Just because you dislike one bully, doesn't mean you side with the other one. Of course, this is probably a difficult thing to understand for someone who hasn't even mastered the skill of reading.
America got a coalition of nations willing to back the Iraq war
Where many of those where bribed into joining. But this isn't about the war, so please limit your trolling to the topic at hand.
But now that the shoe's on the other foot and not only America but Russia, Britain, and most of Europe hasn't signed it
Darn, I'm afraid the facts get in the way of your storytelling again. The UK already ratified the contract (Blair said that global warming was one of the most important challenges facing mankind), together with the EU. I remember reading that the EU will continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions even if the Kyoto Protocol does not get enough support.
it's only the U.S. that gets faulted.
Russia is still in limbo, so they are not being bashed yet. If they do turn it down (which would be foolish since they can profit from it), there will be plenty of harsh words. But please, don't whine like a baby, it's rather pathetic.
Why don't you just come out and say what you're really feeling? You hate the U.S. It's that simple. Why try to manufacture contradictory arguments, slanted facts, half truths, and outright lies to get your hatred across? Why not just stand up and say "I hate the United States because they're the richest, most powerful, most free nation on this Earth!" Wouldn't that be easier than what you're doing?
Of course it would be easier for you, the truth is hard to take. The cognitive dissonance has hit you hard when you blame your opponent for everything you do yourself. I bet that you won't even check the points where I have proven you wrong, since it might cause you to think for yourself.
I think Gandhi may have something to say about that. Clearly, even in very difficult situations there are still peaceful alternatives which may prove effective.
I didn't say I agree, but I do understand why people act like this. Of course, I would like people to be wiser, but Gandhi is so famous for a reason: he is an exception.
Besides, what on earth are the suicide bombers' military objective? Do they honestly expect the Israelis to capitulate by using methods to terrorize and infuriate them?! No, they only have the selfish desire to kill for their own glory, getting to heaven, and terrorizing their enemy. At least Gandhi was playing to win.
Of course, you can say mostly the same about Israel. They use collective punishment extensively (unfair treatment at checkpoints, destroying private property of innocents & people who have not been convicted for any crimes and extensive harassment in general). Another awful method is simply assassinating people (often with innocent victims as well). The official policy is to weaken the Palestinian leadership whenever possible (and then claim that they aren't stopping terrorism) and to create 'facts on the ground'. The latter means that at every new negotiation there are more problems to solve and that Israel offers even less to the Palestinians.
So how is this playing to win? IMHO, both sides are desperately trying not to lose, which explains the death spiral they are locked into.
The Palestinians are having the opposite effect, hardening feelings both of Israel supporters and those of people who formally were sympathetic to their cause.
Well, Israel could also have chosen a far less agressive and more sympathetic route. I think that the biased US media have taught you to look at this in a very one-sided way, but I really don't think that only one party is to blame in this conflict.
I still feel that the Japanese valued life, namely their own.
I disagree, unless 'own' means the Japanese people in general. At that time, Japanese soldiers were taught that they had to be loyal to the emperor, similar to the samurai's obligation to his master (which goes much, much further than simple servitude). I still think the Japanese culture is very f*cked up. Germany really changed after WWII and repented for their crimes, but Japan still finds it hard to apologize for their misdeeds.
However, as you pointed out, they would also kill themselves out of their honor code. This seems to be the biggest difference between the Japanese and Palestinian cultures to me.
Honor is usually a (somewhat) refined form of collective morals, found in societies without a centralized body of law and a good justice system. Palestine is simply too young to have developed a common honor system, but they may be guided by certain moral obligations (just like Iraqi's may revenge a killed clan member, if they aren't compensated).
Anyway, I don't why it's better to kill someone because of honor, instead of deciding for yourself that it is the right thing to do.
Clearly, their honor code only applied to Japanese opponents
No, they applied their honor code to the western soldiers too. According to their military code, a soldier should fight until death or commit suicide if they have lost (in the beginning of the war, almost no Japanese soldiers surrendered). POWs were treated especially harshly because they didn't follow this honor code (and 'cheated' death).
Worst of all they are teaching their children that it is OK to hate and loath and do anything to kill "the enemy," whoever they may be.
Israel is doing the same thing. Ron Furer wrote a book about it.
And they are having as many children as possible simply for the purpose of using them as human bombs and bullets against "the enemy."
This is pure FUD. There is no evidence that Palestinians get many children for that purpose.
[...] about as depraved and
There's a world of difference between the Kami Kaze suicide fighters of WW2 who gave their lives against military targets and ones who simply bomb anyone who is opposed to their beliefs (whether they be women, children or even bystanders who even share the beliefs of the bomber).
...suicide bombers clearly don't value life as much as others and even seem eager to blow themselves up.
That is highly debatable. When you have little chance of hurting your opponent and surviving it, you might as well choose a suicide attack. When even that doesn't work against the military, why not attack the civilian population? It makes perfect sense if you are desperately struggling against an oppressor. Japan simply never had that option since they could never target the US mainland (or at least not later in the war). We do know that Japan had extremely little respect for human lives at that time, they killed millions of forced laborers by working them to death*. I don't think they would have had any moral hesitations about killing US civilians.
*http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
Did any of those Kami Kaze pilots look forward to their own demise?
They did what they were told (for the most part). You mustn't forget that Japanese people do not tend to be individualists. Honor and the well-being of the group to whome they belong is very important. Schoolkids learn about the samurai who avenged their master's death and then committed (honorable) suicide. Furthermore, suicide is quite common in Japan. In the US, people are much more likely to strike at other when they feel at the end of their rope (Columbine & many other shootings by disgruntled people), in Japan people kill themselves in similar situations.
This also relates directly to your next point:
This is more of a cultural issue. The US Rangers have got the motto "leave no man behind". This means that they will risk their lives to get everyone, even dead bodies, back home. You can make the point that this also means that those soldiers don't value life. Why else would they risk the group for one individual, even worse, one who cannot be saved.
Do you understand that this is totally foreign to people from a culture in which the collective is very important?
As for history, it is commonly held that the Muslim religion is still in its "dark age" period while it is concurrently recognized that Christianity has long since emerged from its dark ages.
The allies attacked 'almost completely random civilian targets' when they believed that air raids on military targets were unsuccessful. Is that enlightened? And how civilized was the use of the atomic bomb to attack two cities filled with civilians? Then I haven't started yet on crimes committed by the nazi's.
It's hard to argue that Christians are any more civilized from a military perspective.
Your last paragraph refers to my original question of whether it would be better to believe that others are going to hell and doing nothing about it or having that same belief and doing something about it. Just because a person doesn't tell you that you're going to burn in hell doesn't mean they don't believe it. How on earth is that nicer than trying to save you?
I'm afraid that people will try to save me/civilization/the world/whatever by hurting other people. It has happened so many times in the past that beliefs and ideologies have led people to commit the most horrendous crimes. I'd rather have those people appreciate that others might differ in opinion and do not want to be forcibly 'saved' (or sacrificed).
Behaving unethically based on your belief/ideology is very dangerous. One can easily slide into extremism this way.
-- The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Pardon me for not trying to be funny, but George W. Bush doesn't use a computer unless he absolutely has to.
I'd hope the president doesn't waste his time playing games or hacking the kernel. A president that uses a computer is already way ahead of most politicians. Besides, I think that most non-geeks only use a computer when they have to.
He also doesn't watch television unless it's sports
I can't blame him. Much rather read the newspaper myself.
He doesn't like to use the telephone, he doesn't use cell-phones, and so on.
Nor do I. I like to think about things before I respond and not to be interrupted in the middle of my work. Does that make me a luddite?
All of this should be no surprise for someone who doesn't even read the news himself, and has his advisors act as a "news filter" for him so he only hears and learns about what he wants to hear and learn about, or what his advisors want him to hear or learn about.
I think that this is a problem for any president. There are so many decisions to be made about a multitude of topics, that no single man can fully understand let alone research them. While I know quite a bit about computers and some other topics, I'm fairly ignorant on quite a few other issues. I'm sure the same goes for you.
Ideally, the president should surround himself with experts, who can help him with the topics he's ignorant about. A good example is Howard Dean, who has Lessig as an advisor. Dean may be totally ignorant about copyrights, but if he listens to Lessig, that doesn't matter to me at all. In the end, it's about the decisions that get made.
Why not? It doesn't mean he's dumb, it means he's not good at delivering written speeches. An actor would be the best president by that measure (OK, Reagan).
Bush represents the US government, both nationally and internationally. That means that he should be able to express believable empathy and explain government policy somewhat coherently. I respect the fact that not everyone can give a speech like Clinton or Reagan, but Bush can't even do better than the average Frenchman who tries to speak English. My ears bleed after I hear him utter a few puzzling phrases.
Other than that, I hate just about every decision his administration has made (or the way they implemented those decisions). The fact that there are no redeeming factors only increases the disgust.
Heh, yeah, like the two-party system is about getting the most qualified man into the job...
Indeed. You have the choice between two corrupt parties and the people they nominate. I'm glad that I can choose between multiple parties over here (Holland). There is still plenty to complain about, but at least a newcomer has a chance to threaten the status quo.
It's not even reliable for a willing and cooperative subject. Read up on the subject. The polygrapher assumes that subjects are lying on certain questions and assumes that you lie if your body gives a larger polygraph response to other questions.
Those assumptions aren't and never will be proven, because there are so many variables that are not accounted for:
- You may actually be telling the truth on the questions where they assume you to lie.
- Stress-levels can increase during the interview. Your body responses can change in time, unrelated to the questions asked.
- Your reaction when answering a relevant question truthfully may be bigger than when you lie on an innocent question. You may get very upset when asked whether you are a terrorist because it makes you remember a family member that died during 9/11.
- Plenty more that I forgot.
Finally, if you use countermeasures, you can create a perfect polygraph interrogation. Any serious spy/terrorist will spend some time to learn this if he needs to take a polygraph test. The end result is that the polygraph test is only effective as a interrogation tool. Some subjects are so intimidated that they confess to something (or are tricked by the polygrapher). A lot of innocent subjects do get burned because the polygraphers don't limit themselves to intimidating. Instead, they fail the people whose reactions don't conform.