Yes, if Scientology lends itself to reform and a moderation of their world-view.
No, because my impression of Scientology is that it cannot change (in this desired direction) because it would mean that the tech of Hubbard isn't perfect. And if it isn't perfect then perhaps it should be investigated with an aim to find the truth.
The second Scientology meets empirical study it evaporates.
Other religions can (and in their moderate editions do) take a step back and say "God created the universe and so everything within it is fine with us" , but there's no such position available to Scientology. Because it is an unscientific self-help industry built around Hubbard's trademarks and copyrights (books, cassettes and courses) and not a religion.
An Amish parent may scorn his child to protect his child from "the satanic technological devises (esp. Apple) those other kids play with" or something.
The practice of disconnect in Scientology is to protect the cult from outside scrutiny, financial loss and "bad stats" and has nothing to do with the welfare of the member. (Check out their written routines for these cases.)
The consequences are sometimes similar, but I'd argue against that as well on psychological grounds. The Amish kid is a subject and his humanity is maintained; the Scientology member is an object who has to watch him/herself so as to not make more enemies due to "bad stats" and negative attention.
Okay, in practice perhaps you have a point. People can end up in abusive relationships in or outside religions and cults.
My point is that cult psychology is a directly harmful practice per se, and not by proxy (e.g. a bad apple controlling the group).
So in terms of Scientology, the tech itself is anti-humane, breaking down barriers tacitly to erase the sense of self. If this happens in major religions it is accidental and the exception (even though it is terrible that it does happen!); whereas in cults the harm is essential and the rule.
I have experienced cults within Christianity, but it would not stand up to scrutiny if compared to their authoritative texts. Even if you yourself could not leave an abusive Christian group, you could still do so in principle and find a loving group practicing the same religion (at least in name). This is not possible in cults, not even in principle.
I think that has more to do with human nature (like kids play alike) than the religions themselves. If you are inclined to not drink alcohol because of your religion, you may avoid social gatherings where alcohol is all over the place for instance.
I was just writing the list from the top off my head, because the GP's post underestimates the danger of cults and the danger that cult members are in.
Both your points are valid if read under a certain light. I was not specific enough.
Ad 3. By isolation I mean family members not allowed to contact each other because their contact is considered directly harmful to the scientologist him or herself. Please see the documentation on this since I was just doing bullet points from the top of my head. Yes, this happens in other cults too and in some fundamentalist countries, but it is NOT practiced in majority religions. If you need to look up the difference between a cult and a religion, there is a lot of reading material available for you; but I don't see people sending out distress calls because their kid has joined Christianity the same way people do with Scientology.
Scientology does of course recruit. I've been to one of those interviews myself, during which I noticed there was only one author in the entire library we were sitting. Sneaky bastards.
Ad 10. This is NOT babbling. It is a known fact that L. R. Hubbard was a big fan of the navy, and that his portrait is often in a navy suit. His Sea Org is a military operation, please see: http://www.xenu.net/archive/so/
Whereas Catholicism has its own power structure it was never meant to be democratic. The pope was / is (?) a tyrant and his position grew out from the Roman empire. They've had some 1500 years to develop their own structures, and they have been denied military power for a long while. Scientology's structure was made up by Hubbard in a few years and it has its own special unites for dealing with Suppressive Persons (Sea Org), dealing with media, harassing critics aso.
I think, however, we must remember to distinguish between core philosophy and moderate interpretations. The old testament isn't exactly child-friendly, nor is the Bible or the Qu'uran, but modern Jews, Christians and Muslims are in the majority moderate and not pressured into a single form of worship or a single interpretation of their respective religions. If you don't like the local preacher, you can move or leave the group. Scientology is different. It is a cult.
(Nitpicking, there are people who continue "Dianetic practice" after leaving the Church. They call it "the tech", or technology, and as such they should look into empiricism and inter-subjective accessible research. No publication in "Dianetic research" is peer reviewed. There is a reason why ex-cult members may need years of de-programming.)
Yes, the Pope has some interesting concepts about the world, such as denying the use of condoms to fight the spread of HIV/Aids. Different to what would be the case in a cult, Catholics can openly disagree and argue that the Bible is misinterpreted on some grounds (most of the Bible is conflicting to say the least). There is only one interpretation in a cult, and that is the interpretation of the cult leader.
I can understand why some people (anti-theists) would just chuck all religions in the same Crazy category, but then you are not being analytic. Yes, Creationists are funny but they don't employ slave labour to punish those who question their beliefs. The FBI has investigated the use of slave labour in Scientology compounds on more than one occasion (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/07/scientology-investigated-slave-labor/), which is also a topic of the featured book I believe (have not read it yet). Also read about "The Hole"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hole_(Scientology)
The difference lies between Crazy and Evil. Scientology is terrible. All the testimony I've read from ex-members reveals normal good-hearted people wanting to mak
That last link of yours made me think about the Planka-org in Norway who are against paying for public transportation that is already paid by taxes and makes a profit.
Anyway. The members of this organization all pay a token subscription that funds anyone's "fine" from the corp, just get a receipt.
Analogously, imagine a log less VPN service whose proceeds all went to paying lawyers to protect said company.
I work in a big telco (2nd and 3rd line tech support) and I see a lot of people just linger on after their often expensive contract has ended. Some even believe they are actually getting more in some unquantifiable way.
I'd say the psychological side is an important asset to these big telcos, and they probably know it.
(I don't know anyone in my dept who don't get work phones to use their services.)
1. Scientology adheres to rigorously pouring out your soul, which it keeps records of.
2. Scientology employs methods to erase your self-esteem that is taken from Soviet counterintelligence.
3. Scientology isolates members from nonmembers. This is ascribed to cults, not religions.
4. The E-meter ritual basically employs a lie detector to read emotional stress when talking about vulnerable episodes in the subject's life, which the subject then must render unemotional.
5. Scientology's worldview is essentially a naive 1950s, and it cannot evolve from it; because only Hubbard can write the truth. This is apparent in their anti-psychology stance and views of science.
6. There is no inter-faith collaboration as with all of the world religions.
7. Scientology employs a special language and terminology which categorizes and classifies aspects of the world, especially all potential "enemies" (SPs). This is cult methodology.
8. A person reaching 'clear' may need years of deprogramming to function in modern society and just learn to trust people again.
9. There is no individualism and no constructive criticism, just obedient navy suits. A Scientologist learns to think in truisms, so analytical thought is out of the question.
10. Scientology's structure is militarist / fascist and incompatible with democracy.
Orientalism is very much a reality through western conditioning, and it is an outside view of Turkey and other Oriental countries perpetrated by the grand tours a couple of centuries ago.
Jabba the Hutt is a good example of orientalism in post modern times, so I agree with the argument.
However, it is not racist. It is a geographical area ascribed mystique and lawlessness which modern Turkey benefits from by tourism. (I've only been to Istanbul but the theme was recurring.)
Turkey especially is a hub for trade and the mixing of peoples and beliefs, illegal immigrants waiting to (re-)enter Europe, and this is a breeding ground of adventure, romance, making money and having dreams; or perhaps I just drink the orientalist koolaid.
Prejudiced? Yes. But racist? I can't really say how.
Take philosophy, which I study. People get frustrated just by my saying that I study philosophy. Why ?Because everyone's opinion is supposed to be equal. So I usually stick to empirical evidence and pick apart the arguments.
After a while they calm down. It is the "so you think you are smart" kind of prejudice. If not that, then it's the "you can't tell me what the meaning of my life is". Yes, I can, several meanings from several philosophers which can help us frame the questions correctly.
But I usually just go for 42 and add that I don't study the meaning of life btw.
I'm a student and have a temp job but occasionally help people out with their gear. I have a fixed price for just showing up because a) there's planning beforehand and b) you don't know how long you're stuck there (.5-8 hrs).
The fixed price is not the rate, I add that when the job's done. Usually, I under price the hours. This has two effects: a) they're more likely to call me again, and b) they usually pay more than I ask.
But the fixed price takes away all the people I am better off without.
An organic user interface means that the mouse is furry and the keyboard moans when you hit the "right" key, and when X is booted you'll be presented with the "operating system host" which is a Blender rendered ent that only take entish spoken commands (like Unity); the system will turn itself off at 8pm to sleep untilsunrise, and often not be responsive when there are other virtual events requiring system resources, like floods and firestorms.
African-American is problematic. The term really denotes descendants of American slaves. But what if you are a descendant of a French slave in Paris just visiting USA? Are you African-French? And how about the descendants of French colonists in a former colony? Do these countries have French-Africans and African-Africans?
The argument is mostly semantic. You said advances in tech are not identical to advances in (human) nature. Agreed. Then you said it is in human nature to have disagreements. I'd say both agreement and disagreement are plentiful in all human groups, yes.
Then you wrote that "When you figure out a way to eliminate [very important problems], then you can come back and tell us that it's not impossible." This is akin to saying that 'for x to be possible' is _identical to_ 'a way to realize x'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
As far as I can tell, then, by your rationale nothing is possible until it is present (or the weaker: available within a few generations). This is not what possibility means, and I think you realized that when you made the ad hoc attribution. A possibility rests on its conditions. The possibility for flight is gravity, aerodynamics, velocity (...) and of course the aircraft itself. However the aircraft itself is what makes flight a reality, not a possibility.
My point is simply, all the factors making peace possible is present. If peace is something we can navigate towards, then we'll tackle the very important problems underway. If, like you, we focus on the obstacles, we will probable run around in different directions.
To say that human nature is contrary to peace is wrong. Human nature is exactly what enables us to create peace just as it enables us to create war. However, if you go outside and have a look at the world, most of the world is already peaceful. People defaults to peace. Thus, wars are to people what parasites are to carriers.
Re: poverty, greed, aggression If you look at it this way it is quite apparent that poverty is the lack of, greed is the excess of and aggression is the response to. The first and the second go hand in hand; if x is allowed to be greedy then y will have less (very simplistic but in a game of limited resources with two players). Any limitation of greed should then positively affect a decrease in poverty. This is a possibility in legislation.
Aggression is harder because it lacks a context in your post. However, if we take something like revenge, the solution to "blood revenge" in historical Iceland was to lift the right to exact punishment from the individual and put it on the state. However, we don't have the same thing going for nations (in any effective scale), so the USA exacted revenge on Iraq. (We can admit it was to create an oil partner, and probably be more correct. But it was _acting on_ and seeking legitimacy in the pretext of revenge.) This is a possibility in state police and global policing (a world community of equal states, e.g. NOT the current UN).
Much wrong is made possible by the consolidation of powers in very few hands (kings, presidents, prime ministers and any other "representative"). Callenbach's proposed solution was to nullify representation. You cannot represent anything other than yourself. This type of flat, minimal democracy is a possibility. Perhaps not desirable but still an interesting solution to a recurring problem.
I totally agree! That's why I post report bugs whenever I can.
This is what us non-devs should be expected to do. If the program ask for bug reports (anonymize and) send it! If it's something important file a bug manually.
It is more likely the programmers would not be amused by a patch that didn't follow the internal culture.
The changing is in the present, yes, but the consequence is always after the change. So I call BS on your BS:D
But on a more serious note. I just read that 30-50% of the world's eatables are thrown away. Just sorting out the distribution of wealth is a huge task, but one that seems pretty obvious. In order to do that (and NOT start wars) is to slowly reduce the extent of private ownership. (Not take away or reduce private ownership, just reduce how much one person can actually own.)
In Callenbach's Ecotopia, for instance, he solved this by allowing ownership of a home (as apart from "house", "houses") and owning the place where you work. This way you could have multi-million dollar business, but the dollars would belong to those working there. Apparently, there are some businesses doing this in the USA now after the credit crunch, with great success! People work harder when they actually reap the profits. Callenbach's philosophy of direct relations have much going for it.
Now, these obvious though fundamental changes would certainly drum up a war from those having way too much and wanting more. And I admit there probably would be a war. But they are few and we are many (and the poor even more). So is a revolution necessary? Not necessary, but extremely likely.
Improbable is not impossible. It just means it will require hard work and more work to get there. After all, this is why Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan, which is used by many as an excuse to not get off their arse.
Just because something is counterfactual does not mean they are not possible. I mean, I'm answering your reply not an hour after you published it across a global network of electricity. Open your eyes to possibilities, and what simply is becomes the platform of their realization. And the "real world" you mention did at some time not have an internet, electricity, aso.. Things that seemed utopian at the time.
I find the problem to be with a misunderstood democratic value: all born equal. To some this entails that everything is an opinion (regardless of empirical evidence) and nonsense and knowledge are on the same footing.
The politician who dares to point this out may lose a lot of votes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and no.
Yes, if Scientology lends itself to reform and a moderation of their world-view.
No, because my impression of Scientology is that it cannot change (in this desired direction) because it would mean that the tech of Hubbard isn't perfect. And if it isn't perfect then perhaps it should be investigated with an aim to find the truth.
The second Scientology meets empirical study it evaporates.
Other religions can (and in their moderate editions do) take a step back and say "God created the universe and so everything within it is fine with us" , but there's no such position available to Scientology. Because it is an unscientific self-help industry built around Hubbard's trademarks and copyrights (books, cassettes and courses) and not a religion.
No, because the intention is different.
An Amish parent may scorn his child to protect his child from "the satanic technological devises (esp. Apple) those other kids play with" or something.
The practice of disconnect in Scientology is to protect the cult from outside scrutiny, financial loss and "bad stats" and has nothing to do with the welfare of the member. (Check out their written routines for these cases.)
The consequences are sometimes similar, but I'd argue against that as well on psychological grounds. The Amish kid is a subject and his humanity is maintained; the Scientology member is an object who has to watch him/herself so as to not make more enemies due to "bad stats" and negative attention.
Okay, in practice perhaps you have a point. People can end up in abusive relationships in or outside religions and cults.
My point is that cult psychology is a directly harmful practice per se, and not by proxy (e.g. a bad apple controlling the group).
So in terms of Scientology, the tech itself is anti-humane, breaking down barriers tacitly to erase the sense of self.
If this happens in major religions it is accidental and the exception (even though it is terrible that it does happen!); whereas in cults the harm is essential and the rule.
I have experienced cults within Christianity, but it would not stand up to scrutiny if compared to their authoritative texts. Even if you yourself could not leave an abusive Christian group, you could still do so in principle and find a loving group practicing the same religion (at least in name). This is not possible in cults, not even in principle.
They linger on after the contract was ended, so unlocking is a phone call away (it takes 15 minutes to go through the systems).
There is no hassle to unlock, you can do it online, over e-mail or phone. Information is not hidden.
I think that has more to do with human nature (like kids play alike) than the religions themselves. If you are inclined to not drink alcohol because of your religion, you may avoid social gatherings where alcohol is all over the place for instance.
See my other comment here for an elucidation; http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3412331&cid=42732145
AND this list of differences between cults and religions: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
I was just writing the list from the top off my head, because the GP's post underestimates the danger of cults and the danger that cult members are in.
Both your points are valid if read under a certain light. I was not specific enough.
Ad 3. By isolation I mean family members not allowed to contact each other because their contact is considered directly harmful to the scientologist him or herself. Please see the documentation on this since I was just doing bullet points from the top of my head. Yes, this happens in other cults too and in some fundamentalist countries, but it is NOT practiced in majority religions. If you need to look up the difference between a cult and a religion, there is a lot of reading material available for you; but I don't see people sending out distress calls because their kid has joined Christianity the same way people do with Scientology.
There is even a HOW-TO page for how to leave Scientology: http://leavescientology.blogspot.no/
Scientology does of course recruit. I've been to one of those interviews myself, during which I noticed there was only one author in the entire library we were sitting. Sneaky bastards.
Ad 10. This is NOT babbling. It is a known fact that L. R. Hubbard was a big fan of the navy, and that his portrait is often in a navy suit. His Sea Org is a military operation, please see: http://www.xenu.net/archive/so/
Whereas Catholicism has its own power structure it was never meant to be democratic. The pope was / is (?) a tyrant and his position grew out from the Roman empire. They've had some 1500 years to develop their own structures, and they have been denied military power for a long while. Scientology's structure was made up by Hubbard in a few years and it has its own special unites for dealing with Suppressive Persons (Sea Org), dealing with media, harassing critics aso.
I think, however, we must remember to distinguish between core philosophy and moderate interpretations. The old testament isn't exactly child-friendly, nor is the Bible or the Qu'uran, but modern Jews, Christians and Muslims are in the majority moderate and not pressured into a single form of worship or a single interpretation of their respective religions. If you don't like the local preacher, you can move or leave the group. Scientology is different. It is a cult.
See the senior thesis of Laura Kay Fuller Scientology & Totalitarianism @ http://www.xenu.net/archive/thesis/index.html
(Nitpicking, there are people who continue "Dianetic practice" after leaving the Church. They call it "the tech", or technology, and as such they should look into empiricism and inter-subjective accessible research. No publication in "Dianetic research" is peer reviewed. There is a reason why ex-cult members may need years of de-programming.)
Yes, the Pope has some interesting concepts about the world, such as denying the use of condoms to fight the spread of HIV/Aids. Different to what would be the case in a cult, Catholics can openly disagree and argue that the Bible is misinterpreted on some grounds (most of the Bible is conflicting to say the least). There is only one interpretation in a cult, and that is the interpretation of the cult leader.
I can understand why some people (anti-theists) would just chuck all religions in the same Crazy category, but then you are not being analytic. Yes, Creationists are funny but they don't employ slave labour to punish those who question their beliefs. The FBI has investigated the use of slave labour in Scientology compounds on more than one occasion (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/07/scientology-investigated-slave-labor/), which is also a topic of the featured book I believe (have not read it yet). Also read about "The Hole"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hole_(Scientology)
The difference lies between Crazy and Evil. Scientology is terrible. All the testimony I've read from ex-members reveals normal good-hearted people wanting to mak
That last link of yours made me think about the Planka-org in Norway who are against paying for public transportation that is already paid by taxes and makes a profit.
Anyway. The members of this organization all pay a token subscription that funds anyone's "fine" from the corp, just get a receipt.
Analogously, imagine a log less VPN service whose proceeds all went to paying lawyers to protect said company.
Not a solution but a temp workaround, perhaps?
I work in a big telco (2nd and 3rd line tech support) and I see a lot of people just linger on after their often expensive contract has ended. Some even believe they are actually getting more in some unquantifiable way.
I'd say the psychological side is an important asset to these big telcos, and they probably know it.
(I don't know anyone in my dept who don't get work phones to use their services.)
Yes, there are notable differences:
1. Scientology adheres to rigorously pouring out your soul, which it keeps records of.
2. Scientology employs methods to erase your self-esteem that is taken from Soviet counterintelligence.
3. Scientology isolates members from nonmembers. This is ascribed to cults, not religions.
4. The E-meter ritual basically employs a lie detector to read emotional stress when talking about vulnerable episodes in the subject's life, which the subject then must render unemotional.
5. Scientology's worldview is essentially a naive 1950s, and it cannot evolve from it; because only Hubbard can write the truth. This is apparent in their anti-psychology stance and views of science.
6. There is no inter-faith collaboration as with all of the world religions.
7. Scientology employs a special language and terminology which categorizes and classifies aspects of the world, especially all potential "enemies" (SPs). This is cult methodology.
8. A person reaching 'clear' may need years of deprogramming to function in modern society and just learn to trust people again.
9. There is no individualism and no constructive criticism, just obedient navy suits. A Scientologist learns to think in truisms, so analytical thought is out of the question.
10. Scientology's structure is militarist / fascist and incompatible with democracy.
Feel free to add to the list.
Agreed.
But the first time I saw the Aya Sophia a mild starry evening I felt as if I had stumbled into Jabba's palace. What a beautiful place!
I think it's fair to say that the Jabba entourage is orientalist, a post modern version, but I don't see the connection to racism.
Orientalism is very much a reality through western conditioning, and it is an outside view of Turkey and other Oriental countries perpetrated by the grand tours a couple of centuries ago.
Jabba the Hutt is a good example of orientalism in post modern times, so I agree with the argument.
However, it is not racist. It is a geographical area ascribed mystique and lawlessness which modern Turkey benefits from by tourism. (I've only been to Istanbul but the theme was recurring.)
Turkey especially is a hub for trade and the mixing of peoples and beliefs, illegal immigrants waiting to (re-)enter Europe, and this is a breeding ground of adventure, romance, making money and having dreams; or perhaps I just drink the orientalist koolaid.
Prejudiced? Yes. But racist? I can't really say how.
Any expert field suffer fools.
Take philosophy, which I study. People get frustrated just by my saying that I study philosophy. Why ?Because everyone's opinion is supposed to be equal. So I usually stick to empirical evidence and pick apart the arguments.
After a while they calm down. It is the "so you think you are smart" kind of prejudice. If not that, then it's the "you can't tell me what the meaning of my life is". Yes, I can, several meanings from several philosophers which can help us frame the questions correctly.
But I usually just go for 42 and add that I don't study the meaning of life btw.
If you need to wait for a dinosaur to hack a computer, I'd suggest you hire a computer expert and not a paleontologist.
I'm a student and have a temp job but occasionally help people out with their gear. I have a fixed price for just showing up because a) there's planning beforehand and b) you don't know how long you're stuck there (.5-8 hrs).
The fixed price is not the rate, I add that when the job's done. Usually, I under price the hours. This has two effects: a) they're more likely to call me again, and b) they usually pay more than I ask.
But the fixed price takes away all the people I am better off without.
An organic user interface means that the mouse is furry and the keyboard moans when you hit the "right" key, and when X is booted you'll be presented with the "operating system host" which is a Blender rendered ent that only take entish spoken commands (like Unity); the system will turn itself off at 8pm to sleep untilsunrise, and often not be responsive when there are other virtual events requiring system resources, like floods and firestorms.
Ah, the vividness of childhood memories embrace me.
Nosebleed!
African-American is problematic.
The term really denotes descendants of American slaves. But what if you are a descendant of a French slave in Paris just visiting USA? Are you African-French? And how about the descendants of French colonists in a former colony? Do these countries have French-Africans and African-Africans?
It means black.
The argument is mostly semantic. You said advances in tech are not identical to advances in (human) nature. Agreed. Then you said it is in human nature to have disagreements. I'd say both agreement and disagreement are plentiful in all human groups, yes.
Then you wrote that "When you figure out a way to eliminate [very important problems], then you can come back and tell us that it's not impossible."
This is akin to saying that 'for x to be possible' is _identical to_ 'a way to realize x'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
As far as I can tell, then, by your rationale nothing is possible until it is present (or the weaker: available within a few generations). This is not what possibility means, and I think you realized that when you made the ad hoc attribution. A possibility rests on its conditions. The possibility for flight is gravity, aerodynamics, velocity (...) and of course the aircraft itself. However the aircraft itself is what makes flight a reality, not a possibility.
My point is simply, all the factors making peace possible is present. If peace is something we can navigate towards, then we'll tackle the very important problems underway. If, like you, we focus on the obstacles, we will probable run around in different directions.
To say that human nature is contrary to peace is wrong. Human nature is exactly what enables us to create peace just as it enables us to create war. However, if you go outside and have a look at the world, most of the world is already peaceful. People defaults to peace. Thus, wars are to people what parasites are to carriers.
Re: poverty, greed, aggression
If you look at it this way it is quite apparent that poverty is the lack of, greed is the excess of and aggression is the response to. The first and the second go hand in hand; if x is allowed to be greedy then y will have less (very simplistic but in a game of limited resources with two players). Any limitation of greed should then positively affect a decrease in poverty. This is a possibility in legislation.
Aggression is harder because it lacks a context in your post. However, if we take something like revenge, the solution to "blood revenge" in historical Iceland was to lift the right to exact punishment from the individual and put it on the state. However, we don't have the same thing going for nations (in any effective scale), so the USA exacted revenge on Iraq. (We can admit it was to create an oil partner, and probably be more correct. But it was _acting on_ and seeking legitimacy in the pretext of revenge.) This is a possibility in state police and global policing (a world community of equal states, e.g. NOT the current UN).
Much wrong is made possible by the consolidation of powers in very few hands (kings, presidents, prime ministers and any other "representative"). Callenbach's proposed solution was to nullify representation. You cannot represent anything other than yourself. This type of flat, minimal democracy is a possibility. Perhaps not desirable but still an interesting solution to a recurring problem.
You don't want me near any code. Why should I waste everyone's time when it is better spent reporting bugs, translating or writing docs?
Contributions come in many forms. Patches specifically are for those who can write them.
I totally agree! That's why I post report bugs whenever I can.
This is what us non-devs should be expected to do. If the program ask for bug reports (anonymize and) send it! If it's something important file a bug manually.
It is more likely the programmers would not be amused by a patch that didn't follow the internal culture.
The changing is in the present, yes, but the consequence is always after the change. So I call BS on your BS:D
But on a more serious note. I just read that 30-50% of the world's eatables are thrown away. Just sorting out the distribution of wealth is a huge task, but one that seems pretty obvious. In order to do that (and NOT start wars) is to slowly reduce the extent of private ownership. (Not take away or reduce private ownership, just reduce how much one person can actually own.)
In Callenbach's Ecotopia, for instance, he solved this by allowing ownership of a home (as apart from "house", "houses") and owning the place where you work. This way you could have multi-million dollar business, but the dollars would belong to those working there. Apparently, there are some businesses doing this in the USA now after the credit crunch, with great success! People work harder when they actually reap the profits.
Callenbach's philosophy of direct relations have much going for it.
Now, these obvious though fundamental changes would certainly drum up a war from those having way too much and wanting more. And I admit there probably would be a war. But they are few and we are many (and the poor even more). So is a revolution necessary? Not necessary, but extremely likely.
Improbable is not impossible. It just means it will require hard work and more work to get there. After all, this is why Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan, which is used by many as an excuse to not get off their arse.
Like it doesn't happen with .Net Frameworks in Windows even when you're trying to uninstall things!?
It's a PC not a console (PS3, OSX etc). More things can go wrong.
The solution in windows? Just uninstall the .net fw client profile 4 entry and run the (un)installer again.
My point being, yours is moot.
Don't get me wrong I think ALL of these anti-competitive lock in horseshit needs to go DIAF
x Do It After Fudge?
x Dial a fone?
x Days Inside A Fly?
V Die in a fire?
x Desperately Inside A French?
x Dancing in American Farms?
Just because something is counterfactual does not mean they are not possible.
I mean, I'm answering your reply not an hour after you published it across a global network of electricity. Open your eyes to possibilities, and what simply is becomes the platform of their realization. And the "real world" you mention did at some time not have an internet, electricity, aso.. Things that seemed utopian at the time.
I find the problem to be with a misunderstood democratic value: all born equal. To some this entails that everything is an opinion (regardless of empirical evidence) and nonsense and knowledge are on the same footing.
The politician who dares to point this out may lose a lot of votes.