1) Why should I be a member of the Libertarian Party, and not stay an independent? 1-b) What value do you add as a party that isn't better achieved by contributing to organizations with a tighter focus? (e.g. civil liberties orgs, free trade orgs, etc)
2) How would you characterize the interaction (at the party level) between the LP and other parties both big (GOP, DNC) and small (Reform, Green)?
3) Having watched the LP convention on CSPAN, I noted how frequently in the nomination process I heard discussion by delegates as to the candidates "commitment to the ideals of the party". Almost always this meant "How extreme are their beliefs?" with moderates valued less than extremists even though their beliefs are more likely in line with the views of most voters. (This same situation exists for the DNC and GOP now of course, but they have the benefit of being in control already.) So I guess my question is this: How do you strike a balance between being principled enough to remain true to the goals of the party, and flexible enough to actually win the popular support needed to achieve those goals?
From what I've seen of the progess in OLED displays and digital ink, the comments about the screen being so small and people straining to read can be discarded as shortsided. Here are two scenarios that I think can overcome it (eventually): 1) Imagine an ultrathin, flexible display that you can dock in the device or roll up and store like a stylus, or 2) A set of augmented reality glasses (which, lets say they can be dockable too, and receives display data wirelessly from the base station) that you put on when you need a larger display.
That is, for the things that you need to see and aren't having the computer notify you of auditorily, haptically, or of olfactory-ly:). It would be nice to have a glut of trained developers to help bring about these innovations, so that the cost isn't the limiting factor. Maybe I'll be speaking to my Russian, Indian, and Chinese (and whoever else) teammates, with all of us speaking in our native languages interpretted by my device (at that point, it really isn't just a phone anymore).
Maybe I'm just too optimistic about the future (and I don't expect to be getting these things anytime soon), but the world (including the digital world) is changing, so why should we keep the same interface that our parents used.
Now it's time for me to head home, where did I put my suitcase car?
I think the article refers to the fact that the first people to have wireless routers were tech savvy, not computer users in general. A normal person sees '802.11' and runs the other direction, but geeks get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. But translate '802.11' to 'wireless' and you have a product for the masses, and thus the decline in the average tech savviness of the users.
Anything that damages the community, damages the very principle of open source.
This is why I love slashdot. There is an entire section called 'Your Rights Online' to highlight the encroachment on individual liberties, OSS topics discuss freedom (as in speech) daily, but despite that, we have contempt for not contributing to the Collective. I think I think some folks need to do an Ayn Rand book report.
So long as you are not breaking the license agreement, there is nothing wrong with keeping your value-added code proprietary. Or if you thought there was value in it, you could even get a patent for it. OSS license agreements are to ensure that those who have experienced a benefit from common work contribute to common good, so as not to "damage the community". You must give credit where credit is due, but if your work exists wholely separate from the common work, you have the RIGHT to try to profit from it. Why should your company spend the resources to move significantly beyond the status quo if you can't reap some reward for it.
I apologize if this seems trollish, but I think this socialist association some unnecessarily tie to open source is an obstacle for OSS. It plays right into the hands of FUD writers, and more importantly, distorts the meaning of 'rights'. There are rights besides privacy, and not all of them need to be sacrificed to the Collective to contibute to some common good, so don't demonize people for using them.
If there hasn't been any innovation in music in 40 years, will someone please list for me their favorite rapper, turntablist/DJ, or electronica artist* from the 60s. While these may not be the music everyone listens to on the radio(except rap), they have started a 'genetic drift' in music. And we've already seen the drift in some genres: Country sounds a lot more like rock/pop than it used to, and modern rock sounds a lot more like rap... Listen to more than just plain vanilla pop rock (mmm.. pop rocks) and you will find plenty of changes happening...
Random recommendations - for those seeking a good rock webstream, I recommend radioio's eclectic and accoustic streams. And for those looking for a unique album and not just a collection of songs, check out the Flaming Lips Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots.
(*Please refrain from nitpicking about these too much... I'm declaring my open assumption that what became modern electronic music starts with Kraftwerk.)
While I agree it is a bit expensive for my consumption, I don't doubt that it will get used. I'd be far more likely to pay a buck to know a song I really like than I would be to have a cheesy midi ring tone, and those took in $56.8 million in US revenue in 2003.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Why should I be a member of the Libertarian Party, and not stay an independent?
1-b) What value do you add as a party that isn't better achieved by contributing to organizations with a tighter focus? (e.g. civil liberties orgs, free trade orgs, etc)
2) How would you characterize the interaction (at the party level) between the LP and other parties both big (GOP, DNC) and small (Reform, Green)?
3) Having watched the LP convention on CSPAN, I noted how frequently in the nomination process I heard discussion by delegates as to the candidates "commitment to the ideals of the party". Almost always this meant "How extreme are their beliefs?" with moderates valued less than extremists even though their beliefs are more likely in line with the views of most voters. (This same situation exists for the DNC and GOP now of course, but they have the benefit of being in control already.) So I guess my question is this: How do you strike a balance between being principled enough to remain true to the goals of the party, and flexible enough to actually win the popular support needed to achieve those goals?
From what I've seen of the progess in OLED displays and digital ink, the comments about the screen being so small and people straining to read can be discarded as shortsided. Here are two scenarios that I think can overcome it (eventually): 1) Imagine an ultrathin, flexible display that you can dock in the device or roll up and store like a stylus, or 2) A set of augmented reality glasses (which, lets say they can be dockable too, and receives display data wirelessly from the base station) that you put on when you need a larger display.
:). It would be nice to have a glut of trained developers to help bring about these innovations, so that the cost isn't the limiting factor. Maybe I'll be speaking to my Russian, Indian, and Chinese (and whoever else) teammates, with all of us speaking in our native languages interpretted by my device (at that point, it really isn't just a phone anymore).
That is, for the things that you need to see and aren't having the computer notify you of auditorily, haptically, or of olfactory-ly
Maybe I'm just too optimistic about the future (and I don't expect to be getting these things anytime soon), but the world (including the digital world) is changing, so why should we keep the same interface that our parents used.
Now it's time for me to head home, where did I put my suitcase car?
6,732,157... for those who want to see the primary source of this discussion
I think the article refers to the fact that the first people to have wireless routers were tech savvy, not computer users in general. A normal person sees '802.11' and runs the other direction, but geeks get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. But translate '802.11' to 'wireless' and you have a product for the masses, and thus the decline in the average tech savviness of the users.
Anything that damages the community, damages the very principle of open source.
This is why I love slashdot. There is an entire section called 'Your Rights Online' to highlight the encroachment on individual liberties, OSS topics discuss freedom (as in speech) daily, but despite that, we have contempt for not contributing to the Collective. I think I think some folks need to do an Ayn Rand book report.
So long as you are not breaking the license agreement, there is nothing wrong with keeping your value-added code proprietary. Or if you thought there was value in it, you could even get a patent for it. OSS license agreements are to ensure that those who have experienced a benefit from common work contribute to common good, so as not to "damage the community". You must give credit where credit is due, but if your work exists wholely separate from the common work, you have the RIGHT to try to profit from it. Why should your company spend the resources to move significantly beyond the status quo if you can't reap some reward for it.
I apologize if this seems trollish, but I think this socialist association some unnecessarily tie to open source is an obstacle for OSS. It plays right into the hands of FUD writers, and more importantly, distorts the meaning of 'rights'. There are rights besides privacy, and not all of them need to be sacrificed to the Collective to contibute to some common good, so don't demonize people for using them.
If there hasn't been any innovation in music in 40 years, will someone please list for me their favorite rapper, turntablist/DJ, or electronica artist* from the 60s. While these may not be the music everyone listens to on the radio(except rap), they have started a 'genetic drift' in music. And we've already seen the drift in some genres: Country sounds a lot more like rock/pop than it used to, and modern rock sounds a lot more like rap... Listen to more than just plain vanilla pop rock (mmm.. pop rocks) and you will find plenty of changes happening...
Random recommendations - for those seeking a good rock webstream, I recommend radioio's eclectic and accoustic streams. And for those looking for a unique album and not just a collection of songs, check out the Flaming Lips Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots.
(*Please refrain from nitpicking about these too much... I'm declaring my open assumption that what became modern electronic music starts with Kraftwerk.)
While I agree it is a bit expensive for my consumption, I don't doubt that it will get used. I'd be far more likely to pay a buck to know a song I really like than I would be to have a cheesy midi ring tone, and those took in $56.8 million in US revenue in 2003.