That is not the commenting at fault, it is the sloppy programmers who do not update them. Code NEEDS commenting, period. In any decent sized code base, it is not at all clear WHY things are being done at times. So you can read the code, any programmer should understand the syntax and conventions being used. That is not important. What is important is a concise, clean and understandable code structure with good comments. You can NEVER guess the level of future people reading this code. Just spell it out, what is the harm? Do not be sloppy, do not be arrogant and simply engineer good clean well documented code.
The attitude that commenting is only something to be done if something isn't obvious to YOU is totally wrong and results in poor quality.
The problem with not doing this, is if its not totally obvious WHY something is being done, it may get changed to something "better" which may break things. Perhaps that particularly ugly sort algorithm needs to be there because of extensive profiling done on the code. If that isn't spelled out, somebody may stroll along and think you were an idiot for obviously using the wrong sort and ruin the performance. For instance.
ALL code NEEDS commenting at ALL times.
I can always judge a programmer by the quality and quantity of the comments. A good programmer doesn't presume to know when the code NEEDS commenting based on his totally biased opinion. It always NEEDS it. A good programmer knows what to say to make things as clear as possible.
This is absolutely true. The more you have worked on past software, horrible code, etc. the more you value proper commenting and documentation. Hence, the higher quality you produce, with full knowledge that it WILL be useful someday. Many times I spend just as much time carefully crafting comments and documentation, formatting the code, etc. so it reads as cleanly as possible.
I suppose it also holds that once you have surpassed the threshold of super-duper quality commenting, you get to the point of such awesome code that it documents itself, so you come full circle.
Man, RTFA. He is suing for defemation over some comments made in a book. This has nothing to do with who invented or created DOS. Its about disparaging comments made by one person about another. THATS IT.
Oh, ok. We give out food stamps. To who? Go get some and let me know how it went. Find some homeless man in the 50's living out of a shopping cart, and take him to get food stamps.
I have not been to gitmo. So I won't be passing judgement on whether north korea needs to invade the US for human rights violations. Unlike the other idiots in the thread.
How am I stupid? What am I moaning about? Hmm? Its people like you who have no edumicatium or sense who propose insane things like invading north korea because they dare to feed their people, imprison their people and have a military mindset. GASP! How dare they?
Why are you AC? Why am I bothering to respond to you, I don't know. Oh well.
While I agree in general, I think you are mistaken if you believe the US can simply invade anybody it wants. I can invade thirst world nations already destroyed by war, sure, but NK? Iran? No way in hell could it succeed. The US is not as mighty as you would imagine.
We will invade when it suits our economic interests to do so. It has nothing to do with imperialism, war mongering, etc. The population may believe so, even support such as stance, but its not the truth. The truth is, the US uses war as a tantalizing TV show to entertain and distract the masses. If it has a side effect of making our oil supply a little more secure, so be it. It has nothing to do with freeing people, or human rights, in any way. NK is not an economic threat to the US, and if it were, we surely would/could not invade them. Look at how much trouble we have in Iraq, a thoroughly destroyed country. NK is a relatively modern advanced nation with a LOT more people. We simply do not have an army large enoughy, equiped enough or smart enough to do such as thing.
There is no such thing as a modern nation capable of decisive military action against another modern nation (without WMD's). Hence nuclear weapons.
When exactly did reforming foreign nations become the goal of the United States (ie. your "civilized" nations)
So you've talked to people. So what. Ever been there? Ever been anywhere you supported attacking? Why are you so quick to call for invasion? How exactly did NK threaten you or your way of life? The US et. al. are the ones making threats, attacking pathetic countries like Iraq, etc.
Do you honestly think the US, and whoever wishes to come along, could succeed in invading and conquering North Korea? What insane drivel. The modern military machines of ALL first world nations cannot achieve such as task, as they are not geared towards that. It is impossible for one modern mechanized nation to conquer another in this day and age, period. The US attacking North Korea would be the beginning of the end, it would likely launch a global catastrophe the likes of which we have never seen. Why? Because you think they should have the right to view porn on the internet? What, they have starving people, so lets bomb them? Maybe we should TRADE with them. Have normal, civilized relations with them. Or would you rather breed another generation of guerilla fighters bent on making war against the agressor who uses its economic might to starve your family? (err, I meant "terrorists.")
You, sir, are an insane war mongering maniac.
BTW, how many ounces of food ration does the US government give to the starving homeless in its own country?
Satellite TV, radio, internet, what a fucking wack job you are. Jesus. Ever seen the gas chamber at San Quention? Ever been to gitmo?
I think the point is, if you take GPL product A, add code to it to create product B, then take that code you added and place it into a totally different product C, then product C is not covered under the GPL unless you wish it to be.
You can do whatever you wish with your own code, as long as it is not along side somebody elses code. If IBM ripped their own code from AIX, and did not rip any SCO code, then their own code is not derivitive. Only together do they constitute a derived work.
As I sit here typing on my vaio, with nary a nipple mouse in site, I can say I have never in my life rest my palms on the touch pad. Its designed that way. Or do you have only one hand and rest it squarely in the middle of the laptop? (my left and right palms are sitting firmly on the laptop right now, at least 2 inches on either side of the touch pad.)
I was no fan of touchpads at first, but think the stupid nipple mouse is even worse. So you sit there typing like mad, mouse a bit, type like mad, mouse some more, etc. etc. so much that you can't move your hands away? How on earth do you use a PC? I mean, its so NATURAL, right? whatever.
Xanadu is a theory of structure, not an implemenation per se. See http://www.hypertexture.com/ for a type of implementation. It is theoretical science with a model of organizational and structural linking. You don't yell at physicists because they don't have a product, do you? What products did Feynman ever demo? They come up with the theory and heavily abstract represenations of how it could work. People who wish to profit from this in some way (not necessarily monetarily) will create the implemenations. Its not about whining about who invented the concepts of the web. The web is a primitive form of the concepts of Xanadu and other hypertext research. Nobody "invented" quantum mechanics either, its a theoretical model, thats all. This is nothing like the BT hyperlink patents you mentioned. You are simply coloring your viewpoint of this subject with a perceived similar experience.
I think that a highly advanced society can operate without a constraining framework of rules being dictated by some collective group.
You are absolutely right: When there is no government, there is no society per se, just a set of individuals without any rules. Of course, there is always a "society" but in the sense we are using it, it doesn't quite mean the same thing.
Rules do not have to exist in an enforceable form. They are inherent in interactions, because without them the interactions do not take place. A sufficiently advanced society, economically, socially and technologically, does not need an arbiter of the rules, ie. a government. The rules are inherent in how they interact. I realize this is a hard thing to understand.
I do not agree that a government is simply how a society works. It is how current societies work. It is not how all collectives of people work throughout history. A government is a ruling body that creates, and enforces, the rules by which the entire collective of people operate.
Everybody doesn't "have" to follow the rules and "have" to live in the same society. They simply do, because it exists. As I said before, there are implicit rules in many everyday interactions between people. As long as violation of those rules is impossible, or highly improbable (or even impracticle) then they need no enforcement.
Marx's vision allows for ultimate choice. It is a totally free society. You would not be free to kill another person through purposefull action, not because its against the law, but because it is impossible. You cannot take property from another person, not because it is against the law, but because there is no need to. So in a sense, yes, you are being limited in your actions. However, it is not a totalitarian strict limitation. The limits are not in place in order to keep the communist state alive, they exist simply because that is how the social and economic evolution of that society took place. Technological superiority is one means of achieving this (ie. the people control the means of production, which is quite literal if you believe nanotechnology will ever bear serious personal fruit.)
So, what most american's, and capitilists in general, fear about this type of system is the freedom to not have rules enforced by a state. Because it somehow means you may not be able to achieve more than the next person, without a framework which allows this. What poeple do not understand is there is no limitation. You are only limited by yourself, and your desires and will to be. Nobody is forced to do anything, anymore than they are forced to eat food or forced to breath air. Some things just are the way they are. Do not take the modern examples "communist states" as any sort of meaningful example.
Concepts of things like labor, capital, laws, national identity and warfare, are radically altered in this sort of society, so much so that it is hard for anybody to truly understand what that must be like. We can try, Marx did, but nobody can truly understand a state of being which is so far removed from what we fundamentally understand about everything. Vernor Vinge called this threshold the singularity, which I feel hits the nail on the head with his writings. Its just too radically different.
I simply feel that Marx, through much study and scientific analysis of society, modes of production, government and philosophy, began to glimpse the future of mankind in a very sensible way. It is only a glimpse, but its a well thought out and thoroughly reasoned hypothesis. Much more so than things remaining the same through such rapid and extreme technological and social change as we have experienced in this century (heck, the last 10 years even.)
I think of Marx writings not as a blueprint, but as a window into a possible future, or at least one mans view through that window.
I do not think I am mistaken. I have studied Marx at length.
Social order does not require a government. It requires the social and economic mechanics exist to facilitate the society. There is no state. There is no "us" vs. "them" in a communist society. Everybody is part of that society. This is why a "country" cannot be communinist. There are no borders nor clear delineation at any level between social constructs of people.
There are issues of "criminals". There are issues of severe disturbances of social order.
The states existence and eventual extinction is discussed by Marx quite a bit. The "Dictatorship of the proletariat" phase after a revolution is supposed to be a transition stage and is not communism (it is socialism, Marx described it as "lower communism", or "first communism"), not "true communism" (Marx entitled it "higher communism") or whatever you want to call it. Since true communism is a classless society, this precludes there existing a ruling class.
A classless society, being without government, is a hard concept for many people to grasp. However, it is a *central* concept of Marxs vision of a communist society. I do not wholly buy everything Marx has written, however since he defined the terminology, we must use his guidelines to a very large degree.
I could go on for many many pages about how true material abundance alleviates property crime, how technological superiority alleviates personal crime, etc. However, I won't here. Suffice it to say I am well practiced at this discussion and have not misunderstood Marx (or Engels) in any major way.
You must understand, that a government, or the state, is an entity which is seperate from "the people". In a classless society, this cannot exist, as there is no subset of that society who has power over the entire whole of the society. If you are trying to define state as the society as a whole, your definition is wrong. The state is not you and I. The state is a thing which has power over you and I, which coordinates our continual interaction in a way it sees fit. This is comprised by a subset of society who takes on the face of the faceless state and hence become a class. This is not classless. There can be many subsets of people based on the things they do, ie. doctors, mechanics, engineers, etc. However these are not classes, and there is no power relationship between them. People who "work" in the government are in a power relationship with everybody else in that society, again, this is not what Marx envisioned.
A truly communist society is the most free society that can exist, by definition.
Anyway, this is branching way off topic and I do agree with your original principle, that people are highly uneducated in this topic and have let the American media teach them what is and what is not communist.
There is NO government in a true communist society.
So, looks like you need to read Marx again.
You are either in a communist society, or you are in a society with some form of state, or government. You can't be both.
Communism is the utopian ideal of a society functioning under its own power without a need for a government. It is basically anarchistic, with a model example of the economic system which enables such a society to exist without a state - which Marx writes extensively about - the economic landscape by which a communist society can function.
I'm entitled to it because I say I am and they have made no attempt to change that opinion, plain and simple. If they disagree with me on that, they own the premises and can shoo me away and I will not come back. Its simple common social acceptance. The majority of things in life operate this way, not under some strict trade for services bullshit you seem to believe. I am not entitled to walk in the back and start making some coffee for myself. This is implicit in the design of the place. If there is a coffee machine next to each table, then I'd say I was entitled to take coffee from it, because that would obviously be the point.
You are arguing against the existence of any sort of non-spoken agreements between people in business relationships.
There are many things in life you can just take for granted, not everything needs to be spelled out. Most people can figure these things out on their own and things balance out. There are those who take too much, and those who must be in a clear contract to perform any action. Most people are in between that and there is nothing your ranting against entitlement can ever do to change that.
If I walk into a car dealership, and sit down waiting to be helped, I can surely help myself to the box of donuts sitting on the table.
The sticklers for grammatical rules do not accept those of us who are using this medium to freely talk as opposed crafting perfectly worded essays, so why should everybody sit still while they rant and rave? I'd say the GP will think twice next time before shooting off a diatribe on grammar.
The meaning was totally clear in the sentence being discussed here. The GP was just being a snob, or has some really serious reading comprehension issues.
Slashdot is slowly eating itself tail first. This is the end of times, the internet cannot be far behind! I'm going to go grab my wind up radio and get a shotgun.
Yeah I agree that things are getting pretty bad, but I dont think putting people in prison will help.
I know people who are blissfully ignorant of how screwed up their machines are. Spyware, millions of popups, spam, etc. they just think its normal.
However, its not all that hard to stay free from this stuff, if only sellers of PC's would just bundle some software with their systems.
I have a windows 2000 PC at home for the newbs to use, that has never been infected or infested, and it sits on the internet 24 hours a day. I just have automatically updated virus scanner, a software firewall, a linksys router/firewall and its good to go.
The problem is not infixable. Its a software issue, plain and simple. I know this is old hat around here, but my Linux boxes have never been compromised, infected or infested either. At some point, the insecurity of the systems needs to be addressed by those who MAKE the systems, or by those who are truly hurt by the faults in those systems (not end users, but large corporations and governments.) Prison sentences for non-violent exploitation of flaws and subsequent fraud attempts will not stop what is happening, IMHO. Harsh prison terms have never been a real deterrent. There are many very simple things that can be done to ensure things like this do not happen. The problem is, somebody needs to take responsibility and implement the changes. Corporations are loathe to do that, because it somehow means they were aware how bad their designs were initially. Can't have that.
LOL, ok, so if we don't do something about all this internet craziness, we'll end up doing, err... what is that?
The internet IS a ghetto of spyware, crackers and phishers. Nobody is going back to carbon copy credit card swipes, human tellers in banks and grocery checkouts where the clerk codes in prices into his mechanical cash register.
How does this particular crime, even if it had payed off, going to put a dent in computer use? It might piss some people off at Lowes, result in a lot of charge backs and be an inconvienence to credit card companies - but I guarantee that VISA or whoever would be most hurt by this, would NOT in any way change their use of computers.
If SPAM doesn't keep people off the computer thingy, than a few stolen credit card numbers isn't going to do much at all.
I don't know a source of definition with which you will agree, however I'll use the wikipedia as a mediator on the definitions:
Fascism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
(excerpt)
* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
* espouses nationalism and sometimes racism or ethnic nationalism.
Communism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
(excerpt) In terms of socio-economic systems, communism and socialism are two different things. For example, socialism involves the existence of a state, while communism does not. Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether.
Republic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
(excerpt) A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where the head of state is not a monarch. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large. The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people. In some cases, a republic may be a dictatorial or totalitarian state. The term is also broad enough to include representative democracies.
Socialism is too broad a term to really clarify, its like saying "government". I guess it depends on the example, which in this case we can use the USSR, since it is everybody's favorite bad guy.
There are actual definitions for these terms by the way. They are specific socio-economic systems by which certain people do, have or wish to conduct their societies. I think what you are saying is that to you, these terms all mean "bad" or "good" in some form.
Saying "communist police state" is an oxymoron, and simply means you do not understand the political systems to which you refer. "Fascist police state" is not interchangeable with "communist police state."
I'll agree with you on some things. The US certainly seems to be a republic. It certainly seems to show fascist traits. It appears to be a democracy.
I'll disagree that there is anything remotely communist about the US. Nor is there much, if anything, similar to the economic socialism found in the USSR. The police state tactics of the USSR, is more fascist anyway. So yeah, the US shares some traits there.
If we ignored the constitution and had no government that would not be communism. However, if you model the function and structure of the current US gov't and compare it with the former USSR the resemblence is impeccable.
Ok, that makes some more sense, however the USSR was not communist. It was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To be clear.
Enter reality: there are still private individuals, with private interests and personal agendas, in powerful oversight positions in a communist government.
In a socialist state, yes. True to the form "communism" has no central state, it is a collective with no center, a utopian society. Not that it is something actually workable in the current world, but thats how it is defined, at least thats how I understand it when I read Marx. Perhaps you got something else when you read his works.
Actually, if we had no government and no constitution, that would be closer to a communist society, but not quite.
The former USSR was more nationalist socialism, with a bit of democratic republic style government thrown in. After all, a democracy is simply the dictatorship of the majority.
Insults get you no where.
Wasn't meaning to insult so much as to point out that throwing around terms like that should imply you understand what they actually mean. I know its a good knee jerk catch all to say "communist police state" in good ol' merica, but it is not accurate. In fact, I don't think there has ever been any form of government similar to what is evolving in the US. Its some sort of capitalist neo-republic corporate hybrid state, with lip service paid to civic socialism. Rights and laws have little to do with people, and everything to do with huge centralized centers of corporate power. We have fought many wars in recent decades to further economic stability and expansion for that system. The centers of power in something like the USSR have little resemblance to the centers of power in the US. Similar levels of obedience and servitude, but vastly different goals.
Wasn't America's struggle for independance about wealthy aristocrats not wanting to pay taxes that they were supposed to pay, as ordered by their government?
Slashdot Mirror
That is not the commenting at fault, it is the sloppy programmers who do not update them. Code NEEDS commenting, period. In any decent sized code base, it is not at all clear WHY things are being done at times. So you can read the code, any programmer should understand the syntax and conventions being used. That is not important. What is important is a concise, clean and understandable code structure with good comments. You can NEVER guess the level of future people reading this code. Just spell it out, what is the harm? Do not be sloppy, do not be arrogant and simply engineer good clean well documented code.
The attitude that commenting is only something to be done if something isn't obvious to YOU is totally wrong and results in poor quality.
The problem with not doing this, is if its not totally obvious WHY something is being done, it may get changed to something "better" which may break things. Perhaps that particularly ugly sort algorithm needs to be there because of extensive profiling done on the code. If that isn't spelled out, somebody may stroll along and think you were an idiot for obviously using the wrong sort and ruin the performance. For instance.
ALL code NEEDS commenting at ALL times.
I can always judge a programmer by the quality and quantity of the comments. A good programmer doesn't presume to know when the code NEEDS commenting based on his totally biased opinion. It always NEEDS it. A good programmer knows what to say to make things as clear as possible.
This is absolutely true. The more you have worked on past software, horrible code, etc. the more you value proper commenting and documentation. Hence, the higher quality you produce, with full knowledge that it WILL be useful someday. Many times I spend just as much time carefully crafting comments and documentation, formatting the code, etc. so it reads as cleanly as possible.
I suppose it also holds that once you have surpassed the threshold of super-duper quality commenting, you get to the point of such awesome code that it documents itself, so you come full circle.
Man, RTFA. He is suing for defemation over some comments made in a book. This has nothing to do with who invented or created DOS. Its about disparaging comments made by one person about another. THATS IT.
Oh, ok. We give out food stamps. To who? Go get some and let me know how it went. Find some homeless man in the 50's living out of a shopping cart, and take him to get food stamps.
I have not been to gitmo. So I won't be passing judgement on whether north korea needs to invade the US for human rights violations. Unlike the other idiots in the thread.
How am I stupid? What am I moaning about? Hmm? Its people like you who have no edumicatium or sense who propose insane things like invading north korea because they dare to feed their people, imprison their people and have a military mindset. GASP! How dare they?
Why are you AC? Why am I bothering to respond to you, I don't know. Oh well.
While I agree in general, I think you are mistaken if you believe the US can simply invade anybody it wants. I can invade thirst world nations already destroyed by war, sure, but NK? Iran? No way in hell could it succeed. The US is not as mighty as you would imagine.
We will invade when it suits our economic interests to do so. It has nothing to do with imperialism, war mongering, etc. The population may believe so, even support such as stance, but its not the truth. The truth is, the US uses war as a tantalizing TV show to entertain and distract the masses. If it has a side effect of making our oil supply a little more secure, so be it. It has nothing to do with freeing people, or human rights, in any way. NK is not an economic threat to the US, and if it were, we surely would/could not invade them. Look at how much trouble we have in Iraq, a thoroughly destroyed country. NK is a relatively modern advanced nation with a LOT more people. We simply do not have an army large enoughy, equiped enough or smart enough to do such as thing.
There is no such thing as a modern nation capable of decisive military action against another modern nation (without WMD's). Hence nuclear weapons.
When exactly did reforming foreign nations become the goal of the United States (ie. your "civilized" nations)
So you've talked to people. So what. Ever been there? Ever been anywhere you supported attacking? Why are you so quick to call for invasion? How exactly did NK threaten you or your way of life? The US et. al. are the ones making threats, attacking pathetic countries like Iraq, etc.
Do you honestly think the US, and whoever wishes to come along, could succeed in invading and conquering North Korea? What insane drivel. The modern military machines of ALL first world nations cannot achieve such as task, as they are not geared towards that. It is impossible for one modern mechanized nation to conquer another in this day and age, period. The US attacking North Korea would be the beginning of the end, it would likely launch a global catastrophe the likes of which we have never seen. Why? Because you think they should have the right to view porn on the internet? What, they have starving people, so lets bomb them? Maybe we should TRADE with them. Have normal, civilized relations with them. Or would you rather breed another generation of guerilla fighters bent on making war against the agressor who uses its economic might to starve your family? (err, I meant "terrorists.")
You, sir, are an insane war mongering maniac.
BTW, how many ounces of food ration does the US government give to the starving homeless in its own country?
Satellite TV, radio, internet, what a fucking wack job you are. Jesus. Ever seen the gas chamber at San Quention? Ever been to gitmo?
Civilized....
I think the point is, if you take GPL product A, add code to it to create product B, then take that code you added and place it into a totally different product C, then product C is not covered under the GPL unless you wish it to be.
You can do whatever you wish with your own code, as long as it is not along side somebody elses code. If IBM ripped their own code from AIX, and did not rip any SCO code, then their own code is not derivitive. Only together do they constitute a derived work.
Please... Whose the zealot?
As I sit here typing on my vaio, with nary a nipple mouse in site, I can say I have never in my life rest my palms on the touch pad. Its designed that way. Or do you have only one hand and rest it squarely in the middle of the laptop? (my left and right palms are sitting firmly on the laptop right now, at least 2 inches on either side of the touch pad.)
I was no fan of touchpads at first, but think the stupid nipple mouse is even worse. So you sit there typing like mad, mouse a bit, type like mad, mouse some more, etc. etc. so much that you can't move your hands away? How on earth do you use a PC? I mean, its so NATURAL, right? whatever.
Xanadu is a theory of structure, not an implemenation per se. See http://www.hypertexture.com/ for a type of implementation. It is theoretical science with a model of organizational and structural linking. You don't yell at physicists because they don't have a product, do you? What products did Feynman ever demo? They come up with the theory and heavily abstract represenations of how it could work. People who wish to profit from this in some way (not necessarily monetarily) will create the implemenations. Its not about whining about who invented the concepts of the web. The web is a primitive form of the concepts of Xanadu and other hypertext research. Nobody "invented" quantum mechanics either, its a theoretical model, thats all. This is nothing like the BT hyperlink patents you mentioned. You are simply coloring your viewpoint of this subject with a perceived similar experience.
Dude get the DVD's for Lexx.
I think that a highly advanced society can operate without a constraining framework of rules being dictated by some collective group.
You are absolutely right: When there is no government, there is no society per se, just a set of individuals without any rules. Of course, there is always a "society" but in the sense we are using it, it doesn't quite mean the same thing.
Rules do not have to exist in an enforceable form. They are inherent in interactions, because without them the interactions do not take place. A sufficiently advanced society, economically, socially and technologically, does not need an arbiter of the rules, ie. a government. The rules are inherent in how they interact. I realize this is a hard thing to understand.
I do not agree that a government is simply how a society works. It is how current societies work. It is not how all collectives of people work throughout history. A government is a ruling body that creates, and enforces, the rules by which the entire collective of people operate.
Everybody doesn't "have" to follow the rules and "have" to live in the same society. They simply do, because it exists. As I said before, there are implicit rules in many everyday interactions between people. As long as violation of those rules is impossible, or highly improbable (or even impracticle) then they need no enforcement.
Marx's vision allows for ultimate choice. It is a totally free society. You would not be free to kill another person through purposefull action, not because its against the law, but because it is impossible. You cannot take property from another person, not because it is against the law, but because there is no need to. So in a sense, yes, you are being limited in your actions. However, it is not a totalitarian strict limitation. The limits are not in place in order to keep the communist state alive, they exist simply because that is how the social and economic evolution of that society took place. Technological superiority is one means of achieving this (ie. the people control the means of production, which is quite literal if you believe nanotechnology will ever bear serious personal fruit.)
So, what most american's, and capitilists in general, fear about this type of system is the freedom to not have rules enforced by a state. Because it somehow means you may not be able to achieve more than the next person, without a framework which allows this. What poeple do not understand is there is no limitation. You are only limited by yourself, and your desires and will to be. Nobody is forced to do anything, anymore than they are forced to eat food or forced to breath air. Some things just are the way they are. Do not take the modern examples "communist states" as any sort of meaningful example.
Concepts of things like labor, capital, laws, national identity and warfare, are radically altered in this sort of society, so much so that it is hard for anybody to truly understand what that must be like. We can try, Marx did, but nobody can truly understand a state of being which is so far removed from what we fundamentally understand about everything. Vernor Vinge called this threshold the singularity, which I feel hits the nail on the head with his writings. Its just too radically different.
I simply feel that Marx, through much study and scientific analysis of society, modes of production, government and philosophy, began to glimpse the future of mankind in a very sensible way. It is only a glimpse, but its a well thought out and thoroughly reasoned hypothesis. Much more so than things remaining the same through such rapid and extreme technological and social change as we have experienced in this century (heck, the last 10 years even.)
I think of Marx writings not as a blueprint, but as a window into a possible future, or at least one mans view through that window.
I do not think I am mistaken. I have studied Marx at length.
Social order does not require a government. It requires the social and economic mechanics exist to facilitate the society. There is no state. There is no "us" vs. "them" in a communist society. Everybody is part of that society. This is why a "country" cannot be communinist. There are no borders nor clear delineation at any level between social constructs of people.
There are issues of "criminals". There are issues of severe disturbances of social order.
The states existence and eventual extinction is discussed by Marx quite a bit. The "Dictatorship of the proletariat" phase after a revolution is supposed to be a transition stage and is not communism (it is socialism, Marx described it as "lower communism", or "first communism"), not "true communism" (Marx entitled it "higher communism") or whatever you want to call it. Since true communism is a classless society, this precludes there existing a ruling class.
A classless society, being without government, is a hard concept for many people to grasp. However, it is a *central* concept of Marxs vision of a communist society. I do not wholly buy everything Marx has written, however since he defined the terminology, we must use his guidelines to a very large degree.
I could go on for many many pages about how true material abundance alleviates property crime, how technological superiority alleviates personal crime, etc. However, I won't here. Suffice it to say I am well practiced at this discussion and have not misunderstood Marx (or Engels) in any major way.
You must understand, that a government, or the state, is an entity which is seperate from "the people". In a classless society, this cannot exist, as there is no subset of that society who has power over the entire whole of the society. If you are trying to define state as the society as a whole, your definition is wrong. The state is not you and I. The state is a thing which has power over you and I, which coordinates our continual interaction in a way it sees fit. This is comprised by a subset of society who takes on the face of the faceless state and hence become a class. This is not classless. There can be many subsets of people based on the things they do, ie. doctors, mechanics, engineers, etc. However these are not classes, and there is no power relationship between them. People who "work" in the government are in a power relationship with everybody else in that society, again, this is not what Marx envisioned.
A truly communist society is the most free society that can exist, by definition.
Anyway, this is branching way off topic and I do agree with your original principle, that people are highly uneducated in this topic and have let the American media teach them what is and what is not communist.
There is NO government in a true communist society.
So, looks like you need to read Marx again.
You are either in a communist society, or you are in a society with some form of state, or government. You can't be both.
Communism is the utopian ideal of a society functioning under its own power without a need for a government. It is basically anarchistic, with a model example of the economic system which enables such a society to exist without a state - which Marx writes extensively about - the economic landscape by which a communist society can function.
Yeah but nobody will ever need 10 gb ethernet.
I'm entitled to it because I say I am and they have made no attempt to change that opinion, plain and simple. If they disagree with me on that, they own the premises and can shoo me away and I will not come back. Its simple common social acceptance. The majority of things in life operate this way, not under some strict trade for services bullshit you seem to believe. I am not entitled to walk in the back and start making some coffee for myself. This is implicit in the design of the place. If there is a coffee machine next to each table, then I'd say I was entitled to take coffee from it, because that would obviously be the point.
You are arguing against the existence of any sort of non-spoken agreements between people in business relationships.
There are many things in life you can just take for granted, not everything needs to be spelled out. Most people can figure these things out on their own and things balance out. There are those who take too much, and those who must be in a clear contract to perform any action. Most people are in between that and there is nothing your ranting against entitlement can ever do to change that.
If I walk into a car dealership, and sit down waiting to be helped, I can surely help myself to the box of donuts sitting on the table.
Because I feel entitled to it.
The sticklers for grammatical rules do not accept those of us who are using this medium to freely talk as opposed crafting perfectly worded essays, so why should everybody sit still while they rant and rave? I'd say the GP will think twice next time before shooting off a diatribe on grammar.
The meaning was totally clear in the sentence being discussed here. The GP was just being a snob, or has some really serious reading comprehension issues.
bravo! Thats the first really satisfying rebuke of a grammar nazi I've seen.
http://www.nfb.ca/grizzly/suit.html
Now THAT would be cool.
Slashdot is slowly eating itself tail first. This is the end of times, the internet cannot be far behind! I'm going to go grab my wind up radio and get a shotgun.
/.2K
Its
Yeah I agree that things are getting pretty bad, but I dont think putting people in prison will help.
I know people who are blissfully ignorant of how screwed up their machines are. Spyware, millions of popups, spam, etc. they just think its normal.
However, its not all that hard to stay free from this stuff, if only sellers of PC's would just bundle some software with their systems.
I have a windows 2000 PC at home for the newbs to use, that has never been infected or infested, and it sits on the internet 24 hours a day. I just have automatically updated virus scanner, a software firewall, a linksys router/firewall and its good to go.
The problem is not infixable. Its a software issue, plain and simple. I know this is old hat around here, but my Linux boxes have never been compromised, infected or infested either. At some point, the insecurity of the systems needs to be addressed by those who MAKE the systems, or by those who are truly hurt by the faults in those systems (not end users, but large corporations and governments.) Prison sentences for non-violent exploitation of flaws and subsequent fraud attempts will not stop what is happening, IMHO. Harsh prison terms have never been a real deterrent. There are many very simple things that can be done to ensure things like this do not happen. The problem is, somebody needs to take responsibility and implement the changes. Corporations are loathe to do that, because it somehow means they were aware how bad their designs were initially. Can't have that.
I do not have any need to demonstrate compentency.
All I wanted to do was clear up that you are, in fact, talking out of your proverbial rear end. I was trying to educate you.
LOL, ok, so if we don't do something about all this internet craziness, we'll end up doing, err... what is that?
The internet IS a ghetto of spyware, crackers and phishers. Nobody is going back to carbon copy credit card swipes, human tellers in banks and grocery checkouts where the clerk codes in prices into his mechanical cash register.
How does this particular crime, even if it had payed off, going to put a dent in computer use? It might piss some people off at Lowes, result in a lot of charge backs and be an inconvienence to credit card companies - but I guarantee that VISA or whoever would be most hurt by this, would NOT in any way change their use of computers.
If SPAM doesn't keep people off the computer thingy, than a few stolen credit card numbers isn't going to do much at all.
I know precisely what the terms I am using mean.
:-)
I don't know a source of definition with which you will agree, however I'll use the wikipedia as a mediator on the definitions:
Fascism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
(excerpt)
* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
* espouses nationalism and sometimes racism or ethnic nationalism.
Communism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
(excerpt)
In terms of socio-economic systems, communism and socialism are two different things. For example, socialism involves the existence of a state, while communism does not. Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether.
Republic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
(excerpt)
A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where the head of state is not a monarch. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large. The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people. In some cases, a republic may be a dictatorial or totalitarian state. The term is also broad enough to include representative democracies.
Socialism is too broad a term to really clarify, its like saying "government". I guess it depends on the example, which in this case we can use the USSR, since it is everybody's favorite bad guy.
There are actual definitions for these terms by the way. They are specific socio-economic systems by which certain people do, have or wish to conduct their societies. I think what you are saying is that to you, these terms all mean "bad" or "good" in some form.
Saying "communist police state" is an oxymoron, and simply means you do not understand the political systems to which you refer. "Fascist police state" is not interchangeable with "communist police state."
I'll agree with you on some things. The US certainly seems to be a republic. It certainly seems to show fascist traits. It appears to be a democracy.
I'll disagree that there is anything remotely communist about the US. Nor is there much, if anything, similar to the economic socialism found in the USSR. The police state tactics of the USSR, is more fascist anyway. So yeah, the US shares some traits there.
Ok... so this is WAAAAY off topic...
If we ignored the constitution and had no government that would not be communism. However, if you model the function and structure of the current US gov't and compare it with the former USSR the resemblence is impeccable.
Ok, that makes some more sense, however the USSR was not communist. It was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To be clear.
Enter reality: there are still private individuals, with private interests and personal agendas, in powerful oversight positions in a communist government.
In a socialist state, yes. True to the form "communism" has no central state, it is a collective with no center, a utopian society. Not that it is something actually workable in the current world, but thats how it is defined, at least thats how I understand it when I read Marx. Perhaps you got something else when you read his works.
Actually, if we had no government and no constitution, that would be closer to a communist society, but not quite.
The former USSR was more nationalist socialism, with a bit of democratic republic style government thrown in. After all, a democracy is simply the dictatorship of the majority.
Insults get you no where.
Wasn't meaning to insult so much as to point out that throwing around terms like that should imply you understand what they actually mean. I know its a good knee jerk catch all to say "communist police state" in good ol' merica, but it is not accurate. In fact, I don't think there has ever been any form of government similar to what is evolving in the US. Its some sort of capitalist neo-republic corporate hybrid state, with lip service paid to civic socialism. Rights and laws have little to do with people, and everything to do with huge centralized centers of corporate power. We have fought many wars in recent decades to further economic stability and expansion for that system. The centers of power in something like the USSR have little resemblance to the centers of power in the US. Similar levels of obedience and servitude, but vastly different goals.
Wasn't America's struggle for independance about wealthy aristocrats not wanting to pay taxes that they were supposed to pay, as ordered by their government?