Leave their ancestral home because some psycho is in power in their country? Hell no.
Well, if they don't have the courage to do something about him.. for all I know they loved the guy. Its amazing how persuasive a media system mixed with a fundamentalist religion can be.
As for the rest, I think we have destabalized the region. But I don't really know anything about anything outside our borders except what I read.
But the real reason to go to war, to bring our version of "freedom" to the people in Iraq, could have been accomplished by giving them all green cards and free transportation to the states. Or the real reason to go to war, to prevent them from having WMD, could have been prevented back when we were selling them WMD. Or the real reason to go to war, to avenge the terrorist attacks, could have been averted by having a central intelligence agency that gather intelligence. Oh wait.
What concerns me is the lack of concern we feel for the innocent lives we slaughtered in both Afghanistan and Iraq right after making such a big deal about 9/11 on our international media channels. So we trade 3000 innocent lives for 12000. That's a heck of a deal, don't you think?
It also concerns me that there are many people who agree with you that we should go to war with a country before trying to solve these problems peacefully. You still don't seem to be concerned about the loss of innocent life. War causes innocent deaths, did you know that?
What was right about bombing Iraq? What did we accomplish? What is worth 12,000 innocent lives?
I was once told, probably by a teacher, that 1 life is worth more than $1,000,000. But now I can't see how a single life could be worth that much, at least not in the eyes of the public. Maybe they were talking about an American life?
Greed and the media. When they were running the "dotcomcrash" financial news it convinced enough people to pull enough money out of the tech sector to make it collapse, so only the large players would survive and buy up all the little guys.
If you look at human nature, I mean really look at it and how it behaves in a system that advertises to them, teaches them how money works, expects them to be greedy and spend money to make money, then turns the whole economy upside down on them we see that this is natural for capitalism.
It will happen over and over and over again until we either decide to value eachother more than money or get rid of money itself. Personally I feel like managing all this money is inefficient in a digital world. But most people don't understand what it means to live in a digital world where a computer connected to the internet can replace a TV, telephone, Postal service, library, newpaper, and many other things for most common uses. And these internet-connected computers can be made smaller than a cellphone or a walkman.
That's why we're in such bad shape. We've got everything, but no incentive to use it because we only wanted the money.
But that goes right back to the definition of life. Since a virus is not self-replicating we say it is not alive. However, if you change that definition very slightly a virus becomes a lifeform. How can we say this definition of life is the only definition of life? Who are we to define life?
So if we find a pack of wild viruses running around on Mars we'll still consider the planet lifeless?
What if we find a virus that replicates by leveraging other viruses in a sort of symbiotic relationship?
That's no excuse for not actually reading the license.
I could understand that arguement in a communist society, but here we have to obey laws like copyright. Did they just happen to accidentally start a company without understanding copyright?
Both the GNU website and the license state VERY clearly what can and cannot be done with the software. So clearly an average American computer scientist like me (no degree, bad spelling) understood it completely upon reading it 5 years ago. I've read it a couple times since then for the fun of it, but I knew exactly what it stood for and where it was going the first time I read it.
If they are confused, they are confused because they did NOT read the license. They're just lucky they didn't try to pull this stunt with a Microsoft licensed product.
Oh, and justice should be blind. The GPL should hold up in court like any other license. If it doesn't then what's the point of obeying the law?
This kind of discussion and attitude floating around turns me off OSS a little.
Very cool. This sort of ideology is exactly what turns me on to OSS. They draw lines in the sand and force projects and people to behave a certain way that is fair for everyone. If people step out of line they get their hand slapped. In OSS money does NOT make the world go around.
Yes, but what we know about life is it is in essense the struggle to organize against the natural order of the universe to decay into chaos.
So life could exist anywhere in any imaginable form. One day we might be able to create "living" machines by our definition of life. Life is simply organized matter. And we haven't even explored all forms of matter in our little corner of our solar system let alone this universe.
Let me put it this way. We created the laws of physics, Neutonian physics anyway, to describe what we saw in nature. But we discovered that these "laws" were not accurate. That our limited perspective of our universe prevented us from drawing the real equations just to describe motion in this 4 dimensional universe. And now our brightens minds are still extremely confused about something all of us take for granted everyday, they don't even know if our universe is limited to 4 dimensions anymore. We don't know anything about anything, we just have a few logical guesses and a lot of pigheaded assumptions.
Most people seem to think God created them. So they think they know all there is to know about things like biology, astronomy, reality and the universe. Until they are proven wrong by a pack of rabid scientists and beaten over the head with very large books for centuries until every God fearing man, woman and child in their "civilization" finally "gets it".
No, I just used Maverick or that other tool and burned it all onto my 1581 disk. I had the whole "os" on that disk, desktop, word processor, paint program, everything.
Those were the days...
720k baby, yeah!
Now my OS needs at least 5GB of disk space to make me feel comfy.
If we keep everything simple then maybe it will be easier to read it and program with it.
UNIX is a philosophy about making your environment conform to how you like to work. The commands can be aliased to whatever you feel comfortable with. You can choose what "shell" you prefer to work in. Graphical environments are not any different. And I think programming should be similar. If we had a bunch of easy-to-use and powerful libraries maybe more code would be written faster and with less bugs.
Object Orientation is an excellent way to reuse code and get things organized. Its just like structured programming with a few extra rules/guidelines.
For example if you could create a new window with something like this (Sorry, I like Perl):
use *tk;
my $window = new tk; $window->title("new window"); $window->menubar(theme => "generic"); $window->toolbar(theme => "generic"); $window->textarea(fixedsize => 800x600,
data => "Hello World."); $window->display;
It might get more people hacking.
This is a stupid example, but things can look just at least as simple in other languages if we work hard enough at it.
How's about we run the tractors and other industrial equipment on biodesiel? Its readily available and better than fossil fuels. Just requires a heating element be attached to every engine.
Okay, maybe some volunteers at first, but.. I really have no clue.
I assume there wouldn't be that many crappy jobs to do and they wouldn't be too difficult to automate or ask for volunteers but I have a very limited perspective on the national job market or how things really get done. I think it would take some research to see if its even possible and if it is it should be a very slow transition, fading away money from things like basic food products, basic clothing and neccessities first and slowly migrate that into other markets as the efficiency provides extra resources.
For example if we create a place that makes work fun, this is mostly just attitude and environment, people would have a better time doing the work and would probably be more productive and not notice how much hard work they were doing. If they never had to worry about being fired, and were treated with respect, etc. Maybe some people wouldn't mind working in certain environments. I know I enjoyed some of my physical labor jobs more than some of these technical jobs. If I could get paid similarly, which I think is what we are all worth, then I'd be happy to move sandbags or whatever.
But this would be a huge experiment in psychology.
Then at least be consistant in your view and also endorse cannibalism to solve the problem of world hunger. Since you are so free of moral limits, you could start by putting yourself on the table. =)
Sure, I'm all for that. The quickest painless way out of this life is always a recommended solution.
But I think we could build utopia here on Earth if we wanted to. Do you?
Killing innocent people, y'know, like conscious human beings, is no way to bring about peace. Using embryos for science might save a few innocent conscious people from a long life of pain and suffering. I recommend putting 'em out of their misery anyway you see fit.
So we have another situation where we can let money solve all our problems for us by taking the responsibility out of anyone's hands.
I'd rather live in a system without money, where people were allowed to focus on the job, not on paying bills, insurance, taxes, and the necessities of life.
I bet if we removed money from the big picture we would gain about 30% in productivity. I mean, how much time do we spend counting these dollars? Some people do nothing but manage money for a living.
And if we put our manipulative media system in action, to manipulate people into working, learning and taking care of eachother, we'd never have to worry about money again, assuming it works.
But I'll keep smoking my Js and watching these simple things continue to break down. Afterall people like me couldn't possibly know anything about economics or technology or anything. I've only been using Linux for the last 8 years. I never thought Iraq had WMD. And what about the shuttle accident? None of that could possibly have anything to do with this now could it.
What I am saying is not that I know it all, but that I think together we all do. We just got to give those people in the know the ability to build our system the right way the first time.
Look at it this way. Capitalism works. Its actually really simple. If we employ everyone and they spend money on the things they want, then the system functions fluidly. But when we stop believing in tech/progress or stop buying things or lay everyone off, then the system eats itself alive. Capitalism is highly dependant on social perception and psychology. Which, since Bush took office, has changed in very obvious ways and now we can see the results.
A system without money might be more stable, who knows. Why not give it a chance, eh? Just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Leave their ancestral home because some psycho is in power in their country? Hell no.
Well, if they don't have the courage to do something about him.. for all I know they loved the guy. Its amazing how persuasive a media system mixed with a fundamentalist religion can be.
As for the rest, I think we have destabalized the region. But I don't really know anything about anything outside our borders except what I read.
The Bush administration has started
Wake up, they've always been talking shit.
But the real reason to go to war, to bring our version of "freedom" to the people in Iraq, could have been accomplished by giving them all green cards and free transportation to the states. Or the real reason to go to war, to prevent them from having WMD, could have been prevented back when we were selling them WMD. Or the real reason to go to war, to avenge the terrorist attacks, could have been averted by having a central intelligence agency that gather intelligence. Oh wait.
What concerns me is the lack of concern we feel for the innocent lives we slaughtered in both Afghanistan and Iraq right after making such a big deal about 9/11 on our international media channels. So we trade 3000 innocent lives for 12000. That's a heck of a deal, don't you think?
It also concerns me that there are many people who agree with you that we should go to war with a country before trying to solve these problems peacefully. You still don't seem to be concerned about the loss of innocent life. War causes innocent deaths, did you know that?
What was right about bombing Iraq? What did we accomplish? What is worth 12,000 innocent lives?
I was once told, probably by a teacher, that 1 life is worth more than $1,000,000. But now I can't see how a single life could be worth that much, at least not in the eyes of the public. Maybe they were talking about an American life?
I hate this country!
Doesn't matter. That won't stop the McCarthyists from calling them all communists.
Guess who's got the money.
who really _cares_
That says it all right there. We outsourced caring a long time ago.
Greed and the media. When they were running the "dotcomcrash" financial news it convinced enough people to pull enough money out of the tech sector to make it collapse, so only the large players would survive and buy up all the little guys.
If you look at human nature, I mean really look at it and how it behaves in a system that advertises to them, teaches them how money works, expects them to be greedy and spend money to make money, then turns the whole economy upside down on them we see that this is natural for capitalism.
It will happen over and over and over again until we either decide to value eachother more than money or get rid of money itself. Personally I feel like managing all this money is inefficient in a digital world. But most people don't understand what it means to live in a digital world where a computer connected to the internet can replace a TV, telephone, Postal service, library, newpaper, and many other things for most common uses. And these internet-connected computers can be made smaller than a cellphone or a walkman.
That's why we're in such bad shape. We've got everything, but no incentive to use it because we only wanted the money.
But that goes right back to the definition of life. Since a virus is not self-replicating we say it is not alive. However, if you change that definition very slightly a virus becomes a lifeform. How can we say this definition of life is the only definition of life? Who are we to define life?
So if we find a pack of wild viruses running around on Mars we'll still consider the planet lifeless?
What if we find a virus that replicates by leveraging other viruses in a sort of symbiotic relationship?
Or a nanite that self-replicates?
I think I disagree with our definition of life.
That's no excuse for not actually reading the license.
I could understand that arguement in a communist society, but here we have to obey laws like copyright. Did they just happen to accidentally start a company without understanding copyright?
Both the GNU website and the license state VERY clearly what can and cannot be done with the software. So clearly an average American computer scientist like me (no degree, bad spelling) understood it completely upon reading it 5 years ago. I've read it a couple times since then for the fun of it, but I knew exactly what it stood for and where it was going the first time I read it.
If they are confused, they are confused because they did NOT read the license. They're just lucky they didn't try to pull this stunt with a Microsoft licensed product.
Oh, and justice should be blind. The GPL should hold up in court like any other license. If it doesn't then what's the point of obeying the law?
Yeah, I guess that's the difference between some religions and science.
But if we haven't observed most of the universe then how can we define universal laws, such as the conditions necessary for life?
I agree.
But why is a virus not alive?
This kind of discussion and attitude floating around turns me off OSS a little.
Very cool. This sort of ideology is exactly what turns me on to OSS. They draw lines in the sand and force projects and people to behave a certain way that is fair for everyone. If people step out of line they get their hand slapped. In OSS money does NOT make the world go around.
to create a GPL alternative to XFree86.
If you want something done right you got to do it yourself.
Yes, but what we know about life is it is in essense the struggle to organize against the natural order of the universe to decay into chaos.
I suppose if one wants to advance a mystical theory, that would make life possible everwhere. However, that is not a scientific theory.
Is a virus alive?
Its funny, based on various people's opinions about the definition of life a virus is both a lifeform and not.
This scientific theory you mentioned, tell me, does it have anything to do with this definition of life I keep hearing about?
This is why I don't like non-GNU licenses by default. I just don't trust them.
or imagine if they used it to predict the stock market.
Yeah, you're right. So why bother to reply to ignant fools like me? I can't even spell ignant right. :)
Yes, but what we know about life is it is in essense the struggle to organize against the natural order of the universe to decay into chaos.
So life could exist anywhere in any imaginable form. One day we might be able to create "living" machines by our definition of life. Life is simply organized matter. And we haven't even explored all forms of matter in our little corner of our solar system let alone this universe.
Let me put it this way. We created the laws of physics, Neutonian physics anyway, to describe what we saw in nature. But we discovered that these "laws" were not accurate. That our limited perspective of our universe prevented us from drawing the real equations just to describe motion in this 4 dimensional universe. And now our brightens minds are still extremely confused about something all of us take for granted everyday, they don't even know if our universe is limited to 4 dimensions anymore. We don't know anything about anything, we just have a few logical guesses and a lot of pigheaded assumptions.
Most people seem to think God created them. So they think they know all there is to know about things like biology, astronomy, reality and the universe. Until they are proven wrong by a pack of rabid scientists and beaten over the head with very large books for centuries until every God fearing man, woman and child in their "civilization" finally "gets it".
I'd hate to pay a lot of money for a battery to run my home on and then find it degrade as fast as my laptop battery.
No, I just used Maverick or that other tool and burned it all onto my 1581 disk. I had the whole "os" on that disk, desktop, word processor, paint program, everything.
Those were the days...
720k baby, yeah!
Now my OS needs at least 5GB of disk space to make me feel comfy.
KISS instead.
If we keep everything simple then maybe it will be easier to read it and program with it.
UNIX is a philosophy about making your environment conform to how you like to work. The commands can be aliased to whatever you feel comfortable with. You can choose what "shell" you prefer to work in. Graphical environments are not any different. And I think programming should be similar. If we had a bunch of easy-to-use and powerful libraries maybe more code would be written faster and with less bugs.
Object Orientation is an excellent way to reuse code and get things organized. Its just like structured programming with a few extra rules/guidelines.
For example if you could create a new window with something like this (Sorry, I like Perl):
use *tk;
my $window = new tk;
$window->title("new window");
$window->menubar(theme => "generic");
$window->toolbar(theme => "generic");
$window->textarea(fixedsize => 800x600,
data => "Hello World.");
$window->display;
It might get more people hacking.
This is a stupid example, but things can look just at least as simple in other languages if we work hard enough at it.
That energy could come from anywhere including solar, wind, biodesiel and ethanol itself. So it most certainly does not have to use fossil fuels.
And what's wrong with placing our farmers at the heart of our economy? I just hope we treat them like we did Iraq.
How's about we run the tractors and other industrial equipment on biodesiel? Its readily available and better than fossil fuels. Just requires a heating element be attached to every engine.
Robots?
Okay, maybe some volunteers at first, but.. I really have no clue.
I assume there wouldn't be that many crappy jobs to do and they wouldn't be too difficult to automate or ask for volunteers but I have a very limited perspective on the national job market or how things really get done. I think it would take some research to see if its even possible and if it is it should be a very slow transition, fading away money from things like basic food products, basic clothing and neccessities first and slowly migrate that into other markets as the efficiency provides extra resources.
For example if we create a place that makes work fun, this is mostly just attitude and environment, people would have a better time doing the work and would probably be more productive and not notice how much hard work they were doing. If they never had to worry about being fired, and were treated with respect, etc. Maybe some people wouldn't mind working in certain environments. I know I enjoyed some of my physical labor jobs more than some of these technical jobs. If I could get paid similarly, which I think is what we are all worth, then I'd be happy to move sandbags or whatever.
But this would be a huge experiment in psychology.
Then at least be consistant in your view and also endorse cannibalism to solve the problem of world hunger. Since you are so free of moral limits, you could start by putting yourself on the table. =)
Sure, I'm all for that. The quickest painless way out of this life is always a recommended solution.
But I think we could build utopia here on Earth if we wanted to. Do you?
Killing innocent people, y'know, like conscious human beings, is no way to bring about peace. Using embryos for science might save a few innocent conscious people from a long life of pain and suffering. I recommend putting 'em out of their misery anyway you see fit.
So we have another situation where we can let money solve all our problems for us by taking the responsibility out of anyone's hands.
I'd rather live in a system without money, where people were allowed to focus on the job, not on paying bills, insurance, taxes, and the necessities of life.
I bet if we removed money from the big picture we would gain about 30% in productivity. I mean, how much time do we spend counting these dollars? Some people do nothing but manage money for a living.
And if we put our manipulative media system in action, to manipulate people into working, learning and taking care of eachother, we'd never have to worry about money again, assuming it works.
But I'll keep smoking my Js and watching these simple things continue to break down. Afterall people like me couldn't possibly know anything about economics or technology or anything. I've only been using Linux for the last 8 years. I never thought Iraq had WMD. And what about the shuttle accident? None of that could possibly have anything to do with this now could it.
What I am saying is not that I know it all, but that I think together we all do. We just got to give those people in the know the ability to build our system the right way the first time.
Look at it this way. Capitalism works. Its actually really simple. If we employ everyone and they spend money on the things they want, then the system functions fluidly. But when we stop believing in tech/progress or stop buying things or lay everyone off, then the system eats itself alive. Capitalism is highly dependant on social perception and psychology. Which, since Bush took office, has changed in very obvious ways and now we can see the results.
A system without money might be more stable, who knows. Why not give it a chance, eh? Just a thought.