"the usual argument is that if something can develop into a human then it should be considered to be a human..."
really? I thought most of the disagreement was over when an embryo/foetus can be considered human. (yes there are a few extremists who provide a convenient straw-man)
I'm pro-choice, btw.
Re:The first computer I owned
on
The Apple II At 30
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That's what I love about Linux. I know the hardware is still closed, but one can go into/etc and look at the scripts that control the system - in (almost) human readable form! Now I'm no hardcore hacker (basic bash is as gritty as I get) but it's beautiful that the system is configured by a heap of text files and scripts.
Having said that -/etc could certainly be better and more logically organised!
"If something is wrong it remains wrong regardless of the majority opinion." you are incorrect. There are many things that are acceptable today that were not acceptible 200 years ago. Women's sufferage, sex before marriage and women working are three examples that spring to mind. There are also contentious issues where people disagree about right/wrong. Abortion springs to mind. Finally, even an apparently clear-cut wrong, like murder, is not so simple. Many people support the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in our soldiers killing Iraqis... "murder is wrong, except in war.." (I'm not making a value judgement here, just pointing out the grey areas..)
There are very few ways of buying _anything_ online that doesn't require some sort of electronic transaction. Get yourself a VISA debit card, and go shop on eMusic. They sell mp3s (linux friendly).
"People that don't understand HTML and CSS shouldn't to webdesign in the first place."
Why should someone learn to program HTML just to make a webpage? With a WYSIWYG editor, it's unnecessary. Sure, those editors don't make the most beautiful code, but it's HTML for God's sake!
I think that statement's equivalent to saying someone shouldn't make documents unless they learn LaTeX, or should only use a computer if they know the command line - but then there are probably people who believe that too.
I think that some people have an overinflated sense of their own importance... but good for you if you know HTML.
Yes, but the exact same thing can be said of DRM. It actually *does* open up new market possibilities - renting - which are not possible without DRM. I hate DRM as much as the next shashdotter (I haven't been shopping at ITMS for that reason), but for a rental music market, DRM is a necessity. Similarly, tivoisation can subsidise the cost of the hardware. The buyer is effectively trading some of the freedom of the purchased device in return for a cheaper purchase price. The Tivo isn't a general purpose computer (or at least, is not sold as such), so a buyer using it as such eats into Tivo's revenue stream* - in much the same way as it does if you buy an Xbox360, erase it and install Linux (hence not buying games). I guess if the user is *informed* about the decisions they're making (ie. selling their freedom) then it's not so bad, but perhaps the GPL3 is attempting to protect ignorant/clueless users. Maybe this is why they don't protect business, because they assume they can look after themselves.
*I assuming that Tivo make money from Tivo users even after the purchase of the device. I know there's the subscription, for starters.
"Given enough time and effort, any endeavor is possible. What isn't possible now will be possible later."
Except that the missiles will also get more sophisticated.
I don't want to give you a hard time, cause I in general agree with your comments. I think you'd have more credibility if you didn't use words like 'Windoze' and 'M$' - I reckon the best way to get people using GNU software is to affirm it's advantages, not just bag out MS stuff all the time (fan as it can be;-). I hope you take this as the friendly advice that it is.
It seems to me that 'credibility' isn't so much about trying to connect an online avatar with a real world person, but rather be able to establish whether or not that online avatar is trustworthy. If you have a consistent online presence, then it doesn't matter that it can't be reconciled with your real-world life - because as long as others are able to obtain info about your avatar, then it's fine.
Of course, that's the difficulty, because if you were determined to swindle people, then it might be possible to cultivate fake credibility. However, for most internet transactions the level of effort to do what you've described merely to rip someone off $100 probably isn't worth it.
Well, I'm not really here to win debates, but I like hearing something new. I'm yet to hear anyone make a convincing argument for a nuclear-dominated power supply. Geothermal has huge potential, but isn't ready yet. A big problem (here in Australia anyway) is that geothermal sources are isolated, so transmission losses to population centres will be large. It might be good to supply some of the large mines though..
Sigh. Everytime I criticise nuclear power someone brings up the strawman of coal power. Next time, I must remember to address it first. Yes, coal is terrible. Yes, we should stop burning it. Yes, nuclear is probably better than coal. BUT, renewables are better again. If we're going to change our infrastructure, why settle for second-best? Why not change to wind, solar and tidal, and have the best power source (and maybe use nuclear a _little_ bit, where necessary to ensure supply).
Now, I read your other post. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that, in general, the nuclear industry is hugely subsidised by the government, and that's the _only_ way that nukes are at all cost-comparable with coal. In most countries, nuclear disasters are uninsurable, which means that the government is effectively underwriting the nuclear industry even more. In any case, _even_ if there is plenty of fissile material available, we _still_ have to mine, process and dispose of it. for fusion power, I agree - we have plenty of fuel. Fusion power sounds great, unfortunately it doesn't work yet.
We don't use nuclear because of all the loonies that hate it. That's right - everyone that opposes nuclear power is a tree-hugging crazy. Their arguements might sound well-reasoned but, no matter _what_ they say, there are no valid arguements against nuclear power - it truely _is_ the perfect power-source.
Don't worry about the fact that we have to mine it. Don't worry that we need to build new reactors to process, use, and decommision it. Don't worry that all of this infrastructure will be useless when we run out of Uranium (some estimates predict that the resource will be depleted in 50 - 60 years if we ramp up nuclear production). Don't worry about the radioactive waste, because we can bury it. And, don't worry about nuclear weapons proliferation - we've got it all under control!
But perhaps the biggest piece of bullshit is the claim that nuclear is greenhouse friendly. All the aforementioned steps require burning oil - from the mining through to the disposal.
Despite all these problems, I think we should make _limited_ use of nuclear power. It can be used as a garunteed power source where proper renewable energy sources are used to provide the base-load, to ensure continuity of supply. It just bugs me when people talk about nuclear power like it's the panacea to our power generation problems. Nuclear is NOT a silver bullet - there ARE no silver bullets.
Firstly, the GP was not "bashing the US", but was pointing out the unsustainability of the US economy. Secondly, your post is partly wrong, and partly misguided. The US is not the only country with wealth to buy imports. While an immediate cessation of US purchasing would be a blow to the global economy, it would survive. Anyway, what do you think is gonna happen as the US dollar (inevitably) devalues?
Finally, let's play spot the cliche! 1. God, I love anti-American Slashdotters. 2. there is so much contradictory evidence 3. this silly politically-driven hysteria the same way we look back on the "global cooling" fears of the 1970s 4. it makes for a better ratings-driven storyline if we're destroying the planet through the evils of our own successes. 5. if liberals lose their stranglehold on the media
"Please stop mixing global communism into the discussion."
fair point. ok.:-)
to elaborate, though, i wasn't talking about wealth-redistribution. I was just pointing out that a simple metric of GDP vs pollution doesn't really tell the whole story, because that is really talking about "consumption efficiency". I was suggesting that a metric that considered inequality (for want of a better word) as well might be more useful for the purpose of _that_ idea (ie. who gets to claim the moral high-ground;-).
I fully agree with you though - trying to mix socialistic ideas into the global warming political process is likely to slow/confuse the process.
"how much of Switzerland's GDP depends on, for instance, Banking,"
That's a good point. Australia exports a lot of steel. The mining, refining and production of steel is very energy intensive. If another country buys that steel, then on who's tally should the CO2 go?
Having said that, US, Australia, and others have a bloody long way to go in improving the energy efficiency and sustainability of their industries. I can certainly see a situation in a few years where countries/industry want to buy "green steel" - where the electricity used in production is sustainably produced. This could effectively cut Australia out of such markets.
Another point worth considering is that US/Aust have a very high GDP compared to other countries. Should this be considered, so that resources are more equitably distributed? For example, maybe a better formula for ranking "fairness" would be (CO2 emissions) / sqrt(GDP)* - this would provide an incentive to increase efficiency, but would also be a disincentive to one group of people hoarding all of the resources.
*actual implementation may vary - sqrt is just to suggest the concept. something like (Co2 emissions) / GDP ^ 0.8 might be better. I'm not advocating "punishing" countries for a high GDP, but I think there's a case to be made that some of us have more than our share (for whatever reason).
Yes. In fact, as Adam Smith described, one of the requirements for an ideal free-trade system is that the buyer knows what they're buying and makes an informed/logical choice. In practice, this rarely occurs, and is one reason why free-trade is an ideal that (like communism) sounds nice in theory but doesn't translate quite so well into practice.
No one would let a trash-disposal company make money by dumping rubbish in their backyard - it's interesting that many people feel that public commons, like air and water, are somehow different.
Apart from battery life (or power supply) problems, they 1. typically have crappy, small, low-resolution screens with a poor viewing angle, and 2. are expensive.
What's the attraction? Printing photos is cheap, repeatable, and they look a million times better (larger, crisper, 180 deg viewing abgle, etc). Plus you're not paying for electricity to run them. I just can't understand who'd want those photo frames - if you want a slideshow, put one on the TV.. or laptop.. (and turn it off when you don't want it).
Seems like an expensive "solution" in search of a problem.
hmm. I guess when you go all reducto ad absurdism (or however it's spelt) it sounds wrong. However I don't think the world's really as black and white as you're trying to imply. Most mercenaries wouldn't just side with the enemy if they offered them more $$$ - this implies a moralistic component. Conversely, I think it would be possible to argue that some totalitarian states encourage amoralism (new word), under the guise of "just following orders" or whatever.
An amoral person can do anything, as they look out for themself (also known as psychopathic) - at least a moral person behaves consistently.
I don't really agree with your "traditional spectrum" of good -> evil. Many so-called "good" people have committed terrible (evil?) acts against "evil" people who were really just different. Look at things like the trail of tears...
It might look a little daunting, but I found it pretty straight-forward, and my browser has been rock-solid. In summary, I'm running flash inside a 64-bit browser in 64-bit Ubuntu Feisty Fawn (orig under Edgy Eft)
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the main reason they did that was for the:
"this software is not guaranteed in any way"
part, rather than the
"if you distribute, then..."
parts. ie. it's more a disclaimer of responsibility
"the usual argument is that if something can develop into a human then it should be considered to be a human..."
really? I thought most of the disagreement was over when an embryo/foetus can be considered human.
(yes there are a few extremists who provide a convenient straw-man)
I'm pro-choice, btw.
That's what I love about Linux. I know the hardware is still closed, but one can go into /etc and look at the scripts that control the system - in (almost) human readable form!
/etc could certainly be better and more logically organised!
Now I'm no hardcore hacker (basic bash is as gritty as I get) but it's beautiful that the system is configured by a heap of text files and scripts.
Having said that -
"If something is wrong it remains wrong regardless of the majority opinion."
you are incorrect. There are many things that are acceptable today that were not acceptible 200 years ago. Women's sufferage, sex before marriage and women working are three examples that spring to mind.
There are also contentious issues where people disagree about right/wrong. Abortion springs to mind.
Finally, even an apparently clear-cut wrong, like murder, is not so simple. Many people support the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in our soldiers killing Iraqis... "murder is wrong, except in war.." (I'm not making a value judgement here, just pointing out the grey areas..)
There are very few ways of buying _anything_ online that doesn't require some sort of electronic transaction. Get yourself a VISA debit card, and go shop on eMusic. They sell mp3s (linux friendly).
"People that don't understand HTML and CSS shouldn't to webdesign in the first place."
Why should someone learn to program HTML just to make a webpage? With a WYSIWYG editor, it's unnecessary. Sure, those editors don't make the most beautiful code, but it's HTML for God's sake!
I think that statement's equivalent to saying someone shouldn't make documents unless they learn LaTeX, or should only use a computer if they know the command line - but then there are probably people who believe that too.
I think that some people have an overinflated sense of their own importance... but good for you if you know HTML.
Yes, but the exact same thing can be said of DRM. It actually *does* open up new market possibilities - renting - which are not possible without DRM. I hate DRM as much as the next shashdotter (I haven't been shopping at ITMS for that reason), but for a rental music market, DRM is a necessity.
Similarly, tivoisation can subsidise the cost of the hardware. The buyer is effectively trading some of the freedom of the purchased device in return for a cheaper purchase price. The Tivo isn't a general purpose computer (or at least, is not sold as such), so a buyer using it as such eats into Tivo's revenue stream* - in much the same way as it does if you buy an Xbox360, erase it and install Linux (hence not buying games).
I guess if the user is *informed* about the decisions they're making (ie. selling their freedom) then it's not so bad, but perhaps the GPL3 is attempting to protect ignorant/clueless users. Maybe this is why they don't protect business, because they assume they can look after themselves.
*I assuming that Tivo make money from Tivo users even after the purchase of the device. I know there's the subscription, for starters.
"Given enough time and effort, any endeavor is possible. What isn't possible now will be possible later." Except that the missiles will also get more sophisticated.
I think you meant to say:
"A missle defence system attempts to defend against missles"
The two aren't quite the same...
But anyway, this is just Putin's chest-beating in response to Bush's chest-beating - a load of bollocks to keep the gullible voters happy.
I don't want to give you a hard time, cause I in general agree with your comments. ;-).
I think you'd have more credibility if you didn't use words like 'Windoze' and 'M$' - I reckon the best way to get people using GNU software is to affirm it's advantages, not just bag out MS stuff all the time (fan as it can be
I hope you take this as the friendly advice that it is.
It seems to me that 'credibility' isn't so much about trying to connect an online avatar with a real world person, but rather be able to establish whether or not that online avatar is trustworthy. If you have a consistent online presence, then it doesn't matter that it can't be reconciled with your real-world life - because as long as others are able to obtain info about your avatar, then it's fine.
Of course, that's the difficulty, because if you were determined to swindle people, then it might be possible to cultivate fake credibility. However, for most internet transactions the level of effort to do what you've described merely to rip someone off $100 probably isn't worth it.
Well, I'm not really here to win debates, but I like hearing something new. I'm yet to hear anyone make a convincing argument for a nuclear-dominated power supply.
Geothermal has huge potential, but isn't ready yet. A big problem (here in Australia anyway) is that geothermal sources are isolated, so transmission losses to population centres will be large. It might be good to supply some of the large mines though..
"And how much CO2 do we emit when we mine coal? "
Sigh. Everytime I criticise nuclear power someone brings up the strawman of coal power. Next time, I must remember to address it first.
Yes, coal is terrible. Yes, we should stop burning it. Yes, nuclear is probably better than coal.
BUT, renewables are better again. If we're going to change our infrastructure, why settle for second-best? Why not change to wind, solar and tidal, and have the best power source (and maybe use nuclear a _little_ bit, where necessary to ensure supply).
Now, I read your other post. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that, in general, the nuclear industry is hugely subsidised by the government, and that's the _only_ way that nukes are at all cost-comparable with coal. In most countries, nuclear disasters are uninsurable, which means that the government is effectively underwriting the nuclear industry even more.
In any case, _even_ if there is plenty of fissile material available, we _still_ have to mine, process and dispose of it. for fusion power, I agree - we have plenty of fuel. Fusion power sounds great, unfortunately it doesn't work yet.
We don't use nuclear because of all the loonies that hate it. That's right - everyone that opposes nuclear power is a tree-hugging crazy. Their arguements might sound well-reasoned but, no matter _what_ they say, there are no valid arguements against nuclear power - it truely _is_ the perfect power-source.
Don't worry about the fact that we have to mine it. Don't worry that we need to build new reactors to process, use, and decommision it. Don't worry that all of this infrastructure will be useless when we run out of Uranium (some estimates predict that the resource will be depleted in 50 - 60 years if we ramp up nuclear production). Don't worry about the radioactive waste, because we can bury it. And, don't worry about nuclear weapons proliferation - we've got it all under control!
But perhaps the biggest piece of bullshit is the claim that nuclear is greenhouse friendly. All the aforementioned steps require burning oil - from the mining through to the disposal.
Despite all these problems, I think we should make _limited_ use of nuclear power. It can be used as a garunteed power source where proper renewable energy sources are used to provide the base-load, to ensure continuity of supply. It just bugs me when people talk about nuclear power like it's the panacea to our power generation problems. Nuclear is NOT a silver bullet - there ARE no silver bullets.
Yeah - that's a damn good point. I feel pretty silly for admitting I hadn't thought of it in that way..
thanks for the clarification!
Firstly, the GP was not "bashing the US", but was pointing out the unsustainability of the US economy.
Secondly, your post is partly wrong, and partly misguided. The US is not the only country with wealth to buy imports. While an immediate cessation of US purchasing would be a blow to the global economy, it would survive. Anyway, what do you think is gonna happen as the US dollar (inevitably) devalues?
Finally, let's play spot the cliche!
1. God, I love anti-American Slashdotters.
2. there is so much contradictory evidence
3. this silly politically-driven hysteria the same way we look back on the "global cooling" fears of the 1970s
4. it makes for a better ratings-driven storyline if we're destroying the planet through the evils of our own successes.
5. if liberals lose their stranglehold on the media
well done dude - you've hit the jackpot!
"Please stop mixing global communism into the discussion."
:-)
;-).
fair point. ok.
to elaborate, though, i wasn't talking about wealth-redistribution. I was just pointing out that a simple metric of GDP vs pollution doesn't really tell the whole story, because that is really talking about "consumption efficiency". I was suggesting that a metric that considered inequality (for want of a better word) as well might be more useful for the purpose of _that_ idea (ie. who gets to claim the moral high-ground
I fully agree with you though - trying to mix socialistic ideas into the global warming political process is likely to slow/confuse the process.
"how much of Switzerland's GDP depends on, for instance, Banking,"
That's a good point. Australia exports a lot of steel. The mining, refining and production of steel is very energy intensive. If another country buys that steel, then on who's tally should the CO2 go?
Having said that, US, Australia, and others have a bloody long way to go in improving the energy efficiency and sustainability of their industries. I can certainly see a situation in a few years where countries/industry want to buy "green steel" - where the electricity used in production is sustainably produced. This could effectively cut Australia out of such markets.
Another point worth considering is that US/Aust have a very high GDP compared to other countries. Should this be considered, so that resources are more equitably distributed? For example, maybe a better formula for ranking "fairness" would be (CO2 emissions) / sqrt(GDP)* - this would provide an incentive to increase efficiency, but would also be a disincentive to one group of people hoarding all of the resources.
*actual implementation may vary - sqrt is just to suggest the concept. something like (Co2 emissions) / GDP ^ 0.8 might be better. I'm not advocating "punishing" countries for a high GDP, but I think there's a case to be made that some of us have more than our share (for whatever reason).
Yes. In fact, as Adam Smith described, one of the requirements for an ideal free-trade system is that the buyer knows what they're buying and makes an informed/logical choice. In practice, this rarely occurs, and is one reason why free-trade is an ideal that (like communism) sounds nice in theory but doesn't translate quite so well into practice.
No one would let a trash-disposal company make money by dumping rubbish in their backyard - it's interesting that many people feel that public commons, like air and water, are somehow different.
Apart from battery life (or power supply) problems, they
1. typically have crappy, small, low-resolution screens with a poor viewing angle, and
2. are expensive.
What's the attraction? Printing photos is cheap, repeatable, and they look a million times better (larger, crisper, 180 deg viewing abgle, etc). Plus you're not paying for electricity to run them. I just can't understand who'd want those photo frames - if you want a slideshow, put one on the TV.. or laptop.. (and turn it off when you don't want it).
Seems like an expensive "solution" in search of a problem.
That is one of the most insightful posts I've read on Slashdot, ever. I wish I had some mod points!
hmm. I guess when you go all reducto ad absurdism (or however it's spelt) it sounds wrong. However I don't think the world's really as black and white as you're trying to imply. Most mercenaries wouldn't just side with the enemy if they offered them more $$$ - this implies a moralistic component. Conversely, I think it would be possible to argue that some totalitarian states encourage amoralism (new word), under the guise of "just following orders" or whatever.
An amoral person can do anything, as they look out for themself (also known as psychopathic) - at least a moral person behaves consistently.
I don't really agree with your "traditional spectrum" of good -> evil. Many so-called "good" people have committed terrible (evil?) acts against "evil" people who were really just different. Look at things like the trail of tears...
I don't really agree with his position, but at least he's fighting for what he believes, rather than just selling his advocacy to the highest bidder.
It's important to recognise the difference between someone who hold morals with which one disagrees, and someone who has no morals.
Another poster mentioned the option of installing a 32-bit firefox and libraries.
:-)
But there's a better option:
Install Flash9 in 64-bit firefox using ndiswrapper. See the Ubuntu forums:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=341727
It might look a little daunting, but I found it pretty straight-forward, and my browser has been rock-solid.
In summary, I'm running flash inside a 64-bit browser in 64-bit Ubuntu Feisty Fawn (orig under Edgy Eft)
YMMV, but I think it rocks! Good luck
Nuclear energy is none of those things, and repeated statements like yours will not make it so.