The same naivety that Gandhi showed when his movement overthrew forced the Brithish to retreat from India, without using violence.
Anyone advocating restraining free speech for nazis or otherwise discriminating against them shows fascistic tendencies himself. And I am not talking about not punishing them if they commit crimes, like assault or murder. Assault and murder is already illegal and should be punsihed accordingly. But there can be no justifiable reason for harsher sentences due to political views, no matter how disgusting, or for laws curtailing free speech, for any reason.
As others have said, this is the price we pay to be able to express our views; allowing others to do the same, no matter how vile they may seem to you. Anyone not willing to do that and at the same time stating they are pro-free speech, just not for (insert random hated group), is a hypocrite.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others..."
I am not saying this only to defend nazis, but out of a sense of self-preservation too. If it becomes acceptable, and the public becomes used to that there are thought crimes, views you can go to jail for expressing, then the black list is sure to grow. Slippery slope.
Next time it might be your political or religuous view that is outlawed. Be warned.
There is no way there can be, or ever can have been fusion in the Earths core. The temp there is some 5 500 K IIRC. The easiest type of fusion to occur (Deuterium fusion, which happens for a short while in Brown Dwarfs) requires some 300 000 K I think, while ordinary hydrogen fusion is an order of magnitude more still.
(And yes, I know that the required temp is dependent on pressure or density too, but the lower pressure in Earths core (compared to stars or brown dwarfs) would make the required temp still higher.)
Pluto is a planet. It is nearly 3 times as large as the biggest asteroid, Ceres, whereas the 2nd smallest planet, Mercury is about 2 times as large as Pluto. If we need an arbitrary size limit, it is most reasonable to draw it between Pluto and Ceres, since the gap is biggest there.
On the other hand, I think there should be a more qualitative definition, and I think the type of orbit should not be a consideration (making larger moons planets too).
In my scheme, planets are non-star bodies never having had any fusion of any kind in their cores (excluding brown dwarfs), that are large enough to be roughly spherical.
Using this, we would have 29 major planets in our solar system: apart from the ordinarly nine Luna, Ceres, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Triton and Charon would be included, which they deserve, being worlds of their own right. (Vesta, Pallas, Hyperion, Proteus and Nereid are larger than Mimas, but irregular or "squarish".
We must protect the rights to free speech only of those who will allow others to speak freely.
Following this logic, noone gets free speech. If you deny any one else free speech, for whatever reason, then you dont allow others to speak freely. Thus, according to the above dictum, you have no right to free speech either.
I sometimes wonder why it must be so hard for some people to understand that either you have free speech, or you dont. If you deny anyone it, for any reason, then you are no better than a nazi yourself. So you think that promoting speech you agree with makes you tolerant? The true test of tolerance is tolerating ideas you disagree with, or even find repulsive or sickening.
Thats why we must tolerate even nazis expressing themselves, because if we dont, we are no better than they.
It would also be advisable to stop demonizing them or thinking them idiotic morons. Most actually are not particularly stupid, have reasons for their stance, and the injustices they are exposed to only serve to deepen and justify their hatred for what they view as a corrupt society. The end result of the present policies will be a group of harder, more determined, relentless and fanatical nazis, more predisposed to real terorism than yelling "Sieg Heil" while drunk. Of course the police will win the confrontation in the end, but at what cost? Both in terms of victims of bombings and such, and in the Police State created thus.
If you want to improve things, rather approach them with rational arguments, understanding and love and teach them that there is a better way than the way of hate.
The commercial web drives the mainstream internet.
No you moron, it most certainly does not. Even the mainstream Internet exists, in spite of the commercial web, not because of it. Based on my experience I would say that the most important parts of the Internet (in terms of time spent, for the mainstream (=AOLers and such) is:
1. Email 2. Chat and/or IM 3. Information search on the Web 4. Napster 5. Online discussion (Usenet/msgboards) 6. The commercial web (buying stuff, online gaming etc.)
Remove this driving force and the web will not reach the mainstream. The web (and by extension the internet) will be used by the "geek" population, made of people like you, the reader, and will remain in the backwaters of society, stagnant. No company would have the incentive to use the internet, and in a capitalist society, companies are the only entities with resources sufficient to bring the internet to the masses.
This is like saying that without telemarketers the telephone system would collapse. Yes, we need companies to bring us the physical connections (ISPs, cable companies etc.), but as with the telephone companies are not needed for the content. The users will themselves provide the content, which will be of much higher quality than any commercial fluff. The Internet was made for the spreading of information, not to sell things, and this is what it will do.
(Side note: You are not the masses. Keep that in mind:)
But my girlfriend, who is on AOL, and my grandmother is. I know what they want and need, because I have talked to them about it.
Now, has the commercial internet peaked? The internet is a very unusual medium of commerce: very few companies made money on it (through sales of products/services). Plenty made money off of it, on the stock markets of the world. The driving force behind the commerical web was provided by inflated stock prices. Based on that, I would have to say the commercial internet peaked in February 2000. A bitter pill.
Not at all. The bubble had to burst, and it was good it happened sooner rather than later. The Internet was not made for commerce anyway.
Now, the acceleration of the growth of the internet has levelled off, but the internet is still growing.
Of course. With a fixed number of human beings, not to mention ones who can afford computers and phone lines, a geometric growth rate is unsustainable. Thats really simple math.
When was the last time you heard of somebody getting off the internet? I think that unless the internet is proven to be a profitable medium (either by new technology or a new economic paradigm (I know all of you love that word;)), that phrase will become commonplace. The internet will die a lonely and miserable death.
Crap. Some people might indeed get off the net, just like some people throw away their TV or disconnect their phone. That hardly implies the death of TV or phone. It is possible that many companies will leave the Internet if it is proven not to be a profitable medium. If so, I say Good Riddance! The Internet was not meant to be another place of intrusive and dishonest marketing, but a place for the sharing of information.
To slightly paraphrase Jesus:;-)
The Internet will be called a house of information sharing, but you are turning it into a den of robbers!
I know the/. community loves the internet. "What", I hear you say, "can we do about it?" The answer is:
you must make the internet profitable for companies.
No. That is not necessary, nor desirable. Profit is not what the Internet is about, nor were it ever. Ask the ones who built it.
And by extension, stop making it unprofitable for companies. Don't give away better products than companies can make, at a better price than they can offer. Stop the open-source movement. Because open-source will kill the internet.
Im really hoping that you are just a Troll, because this breaks all records in stupidity.
What do we want? An Internet for information sharing. What do we not want? An Internet filled with advertising, marketing and other dishonesty, just like TV now. How do we achieve it? By making it unprofitable for companies. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.
So we shouldnt give away better products than companies can make, at a better price than they can offer? And for what? So that companies will be able to get huge profits, in exchange for lousy products and services. Good grief!
That's right. The open-source movement is making the internet unprofitable for companies,
Thats true to some extent, and thats part of the beauty of it.
removing the driving force behind the driving force behind the internet. That's not a typo.
Removing the driving force behind the corruption of the Internet, more likely. And that would IMO be a Good Thing.
Ladies and gentlemen of slashdot.org, you are faced with a difficult choice. There are 2 likely futures for the internet you have come to know and love better and more than any other group in the world. An internet that enters a gradual decline but stays true to its hacker roots, providing not the masses, but you with good, free software, and dies with the retirement of your generation, say in 20 years.
Laughable. More like it, an Internet that stays true to its hacker roots, and provides the masses with good, free software and other information, file sharing and communication. Something which grows into a distributed system without central servers, running directly on the users own machines. An ever-growing library containing all information there is; books, art, music, movies, software. A communication and publishing system from many to many, destroying the information monopoly of the govt, traditional media and corporations. No wonder they are so afraid of it. It will mean the end of their power.
Or, an internet that everybody can use, and one that will last indefinitely, but one that is irrevocably changed from the internet you have built: an internet where profitability and the almighty dollar rule supreme, and where individual voices are drowned out by the noise. I do not envy you.
In short, an Internet filled with the same kind of crap TV and the traditional media are. Made by people wanting nothing else but to get into your wallet. Filled not with information, but with disinformation, deceit and lies (that is, ads).
Make no mistake, even non-geek people mostly hate and are fed up with the constant dishonesty and intrusiveness in marketing and ads. They just dont know what to do about it.
P.S.: No bullshit about how internet!=web, please. In the popular mind, they are the same. That makes them the same. Get over it.
So I guess in the popular mind, email, chat and IM does not exist. I guess you believe in Santa too...
/Dervak
Re:I know I'll be modded down, but bear with me he
on
Warez and Abandonware
·
· Score: 1
So your willing to just copy the program that someone wrote for two years and is charging money for to support his/her family. Because you copied it and gave it to all your friends who use it constantly, that programmer can no longer afford to buy food. You murderer.
You Sir, are an Idiot.
So youre not willing to buy the program that someone wrote for two years and is charging money for to support his/her family, just because you have no need for it, or that it just plain sucks. Because of your and all your friends unwillingness to all the same fork up your dough, that programmer can no longer afford to buy food. You murderer.
In short, since you seem to have a short attention span, potential loss is no loss at all. You cant lose something you never had in the first place.
/Dervak
Re:I know I'll be modded down, but bear with me he
on
Warez and Abandonware
·
· Score: 1
Do we both have the blood, sweat, tears and long lonely hours that went into creating it?
Good point.
No.
Extremely bad point. Any particular reason why you think there should be more blood, sweat, tears and long lonely hours in the world? Or are you just evil?
Facts:
Physical goods: Substantial effort needed to design and build first. For each additional copy: still considerable effort needed.
Services: Some effort needed to design and perfect. For each occurence: significant effort needed.
Analog information: Substantial effort needed to create. For each additional copy: relatively small effort needed.
Digital information: Substantial effort needed to create. For each additional copy: near-zero effort needed.
Spot the difference?
Information can be copied at near-zero cost. That means, that unlike with physical goods and services, I can have what you have without depriving you of it. Which in turn means that there can be no justifiable reason for obstructing copying. Your right to make lots of money is far less important than everyone elses right to get for free what they can and should have for free.
I much more prefer a world where I create what I love to do, and then give it away for free to everyone who wants it, in turn getting what others create for free, than a society where you must pay for everything, where only a pittance goes to the creators anyway, the rest fattening faceless inhuman corporations with their lawyers.
The opposition to intellectual property seem to come from varying sources:
1. Those unable to produce any of the kind,
Nope. Definately producing.
2. Those longing for old-fashioned systems of artists sponsored by rich aristocrats/businessmen's blood money,
Not at all. In my kind of society there would be no rich aristocrats/businessmen. Eradicating IP will not bring this about in itself of course, but it is a good start.
3. Old-fashioned industrialists who believe that only manual labour represents valuable work,
Not true either.
4. Leeches who want stuff for free,
I do want stuff for free, but I am able to and willing to give away stuff for free as well. Thus I do not fit the definition.
5....
5. Somewhat idealistic people, who still in this age believe that there is value in other things than money and power, who want to reduce the differences in our society rather than enlarge them, who believe that the needs of the common men and women should be more important than the wants of rich people and megacorporations, who think that it is not only their
right to oppose any ludicrous notion of owning information, it is their duty to do so.
Yes, that one is correct.
The opponents to IP should check which category they belong to, and find out if they like being there.
The proponents of "intellectual property" seem to come from varying sources:
1. Those unable to produce any of the kind, but who has managed to get a middle-man position, where they profit from the work of others.
2. Those profiting from an old-fashioned system where artists are being screwed in the ass by rich execs/businessmen,
3. Old-fashioned IP protagonists who believe that collecting money forever from one work you made once (royalties) is fair,
4. Lawyers who will profit more no matter what since the existence of IP means more lawsuits,
5....
The proponents to IP should check which category they belong to, and find out if they like being there.
/. charging is, I would bet, quite likely within 5 years. As VC money dries up, companies are going to need to find some other way to pay for providing content (and such).
Dear me.
Here I was thinking that it is actually the users that are providing the content (submitting stories, posting comments) on slashdot. Why do you need money for that?
Now, of course servers and bandwidth costs real money, but thats what the ads are supposed to cover. In case they dont another solution might be needed. In 5 years I see a distributed/. running on the users machines anyway, so this might be a moot point.
If you read your CD it says that it is illegal, without prior consent, to copy it to another form.
So? They can write whatever they want on the CD, that they own your first-born child or your Soul, it still doesnt make it valid. The only thing thats valid legally is what the law says.
The courts have ruled that private copying, time-shifting and space-shifting as well as backup is legal. According to some, even noncommercial trading is legal. But the corps try to make you believe it is illegal. Fuck them.
Like I said, the owner of the property has the right to do with it what he will.
The point of this is that it is not property and there is no owner. COPYRIGHT!=OWNERSHIP. Copyright is a govt-granted monopoly on the commercial distribution of certain works, not ownership. That said, IMO Copyright must be destroyed, because it is so blatantly abused.
IIRC the Great pyramids at Gizeh were found totally empty, not even debris from rotted wood, cloth or food. The Great Pyramid (Cheops/Khufu) first was broken into by workmen under Caliph Al-Mamoun in 820 AD. No graverobbers had been there before him, because the passageway was blocked by a series of giant granite slabs, which they had to bypass by tunnelling thru the limestone to the side.
When they arrived in the King's Chamber they found a stone box, not a regular sarcophagus, but rude, unfinished, without a lid and without an inscription. They also found no trace whatsoever of burial, offerings, pottery, etc. The pyramid itself bears no inscription, except of the name of Cheops, painted by the quarry workers on a slab of the ceiling of the King's Chamber, not visible to a visitor of the Chamber.
Now, I dont necessarily think the Great Pyramids were beacons for aliens or some such, but I very much doubt they were tombs of the pharaos. Perhaps some day we will know...
We would be fools to assume that our own cops are guilty without actual evidence, in the form of eye-witness testimony and physical evidence...
I was speaking in general terms; of course there are cops who are not bad and corrupt and who do not abuse their position, but they are few and far between. Not because people becoming cops are more susceptible to corruption than other people, but because they are put into a position of power.
Few can resist abusing that, and its a slippery slope; you might start just by giving some "bad guy" a beating with the ol nightstick - after all, he deserves it! Then you might start tampering with evidence, if you dont find any drugs in the raid, then you plant some, because of course you know that low-life is guilty, and youre not going to let him slip away this time. Then, when some of your colleagues go a little to far and actually beat some poor guy to death, then of course you are loyal and didnt see anything "He must have fallen in the stairs, your Honor"...
Oh wait, you don't believe in those... guess you'll just have to go on your assumptions and intuitions about everything.
How the fsck do you know what I believe in? The previous post was my first on this topic. Let me tell you: I believe in a fair system, where people are treated according to their deeds, not according to how much money and power they have, the color of their skin, or their political, philosophical or religuous views. I believe in a system without anyone in power. I believe in Anarchism.
Yes, sometimes they do. Why? Because they are human, and all humans have moral weaknesses. But they don't lie and tamper with evidence as much as your run of the mill criminal does. And, I don't believe they are routinely harassing and locking up innocent people.
But they are. Cops are not just as bad as common people when it comes to lying and cheating - they are worse.
Why? Because cops have power, and power corrupts. Always. Throughout history, the very worst crimes have been committed by the police (and military). The examples are endless - the Spanish Inquisition, the Cheka-NKVD-KGB in the Soviet Union, Gestapo-SS in Nazi Germany, death squads in Latin America etc.
More recently, who committed the very worst atrocities in ex-Yugoslavia, including mass murder, torture, organized rapes (of children even)? Answer: the Police.
We would be fools to believe our own cops are not capable of similar stuff - the only reason they havent gone to such extremes is that they could not get away with that - yet.
No; the misalignment corresponds to the two particular stars used. If they'd used other stars' simultaneous transits, the relative errors would have been different.
Yes, given the accepted construction date. However, the same misaligments would have appeared with any other star pair, at some other date.
If they'd been building the pyramids some other time, they'd have found two other stars that were across the celestial pole from each other, or were on the same meridian (or whatever circles of equal RA are called - RA as in right ascension, not the sun god!). With a couple of thousand rather bright stars available, this wouldn't have been a huge problem.
Exactly. Thats my whole point. How do we know the pyramids were built around 2500 BC? The misalignment pattern for Kochab-Mizar suggests it. But the same pattern would appear for other star pairs, at other dates as well. So how do we know the date? Because the Egyptologists say so. No more, no less.
I may be wrong, but I'm assuming that since they say "all but two" that they did actually check this against all of the pyramids in Egypt, excluding pyramids that were not completed or those were this measurement can't be made (i.e. covered mostly by sand). I would guess that since this is such a heated topic that the misalignment from true north of each pyramid is already known and therefore easy to correlate to any data they have gathered.
Fair enough; the deviation from true north is probably pretty well known for most if not all pyramids. Im not so certain about the dates though. And Id be interested in the magnitude of the spread. "Remarkably straight line" sure sounds impressive, but its not quantitative.
Maybe I'm wrong but I have a hard time believing that with ancient records, both in Egypt and other civilations, and from radio-carbon dating of materials inside the pyramid (including the remains of the pharoahs), that Egytologists can't date the pyramids to within 1000 years.
Maybe Im just ignorant of recent finds, but I was under the impression that they actually had found no remains of pharaos in any pyramid, and certainly not in the great Gizeh ones. That they were eerily empty, and since you cannot get a radiocarbon date on rock or dust there were no radiometric dates. That the only dates comes from calculations of dynasties, and that the only reason the pyramids are thought as king tombs is because tradition says so, not because of any finds. But please correct me if I am wrong.
Also, I'm not saying that this is definetly the way that the Egyptians found true north. But it does seem to be a good theory.
Its not bad, and it is possible it is right. I just have this thing for attacking orthodoxy at any opportunity, just for the hell of it... being kinda like the Devils Advocate...;-)
For question 1c), There are more than the 3 pyramids in Ghaza to verify the error in alignment.
Yes there is, but are those smaller pyramides as accurately aligned? And are their dates consistent with the model?
"When the Egyptians were constructing their tombs, there was no visible pole star within two degrees of true north, yet they were able to achieve an accuracy of just three arc minutes (one twentieth of a degree)." I highly doubt this would be achieved by chance or human error.
Indeed, but how do you know the pyramids were really built then? Because the egyptologists say so. If they were built at some other time there might have been other stars, or lines between pairs of stars, that were close to the celestial pole. Perhaps they used some other method to find north? Sighting along stones perhaps?
"By running computer simulations of the night sky back to the time of the Egyptian kingdoms, she has also identified the stars that were most probably used -- z-Ursae Majoris and g-Ursae Minoris -- one each from the constellations of The Great and The Little Bear, which had simultaneous transits in 2467 BC."
Yes they had, but very roughly 1000 years earlier beta Ursae Minoris (Kochab) and eta Ursae Majoris (Alkaid) had simultaneous transits too. And earlier still there were other simultaneous transits of bright star pairs. The only reason for choosing the Kochab-Mizar alignment seems to be because it fits the orthodox date.
For question 2), the answer is not necessarily. Because some of the pyramids are slightly east of true north and some are slightly west, and because the star(s) closest to true north vary with a 26,000 year period, I don't think there would be many other instances (in the time frame that the pyramids were built) that this could have happened. If all of the pyramids were built earlier than 2467 BC they would all be off slightly to the east and if they were all built after 2467 BC, they'd all be off to the west.
This all presupposes that the Kochab-Mizar alignment was used, rather than some other stars, or some other method, and that the pyramids were actually built in that timeframe, which is far from certain.
I say that if you hypothesize that the pyramids were built in, say 3500 BC instead, using this very same method of finding north, but using the simultaneous transits of Kochab-Alkaid instead, then this very same pattern of misalignment would appear if the construction dates were offset from each other by the same amount of time.
For question 3, I don't believe the Egyptians knew that they weren't exactly at true north. And it's not so much that they would have been less accurate at any other period of time, it's that there would have been more pyramids to either the east or west of true north depending on when they started building them. The first pyramid built that is slightly to the west of true north tells you the first pyramid build after 2467 BC. And by measuring the error, it should tell you when the pyramid was built, since they know how long it would have taken the two starts to be off from true north by that amount.
This all presupposes that they actually measured north by this method, something I am far from convinced of.
2.The big sphinx is WAY older than we thought. some geologist proved this.
While this isnt accepted in the main stream (yet) I find the evidence for this compelling. The facts go roughly like this:
The sphinx is not built, but carved from a large rock jutting up from the desert. It is made of sandstone.
Orthodoxy says that its head is the likeness of Pharaoh Chefren (who claims this), but it is not very similar to other portrayals of him.
The lion body is very badly eroded indeed, but the head no nearly as much, contrary to what one might expect. Also, the head is far too small compared to the body - the proportions are way wrong.
In the desert, the primary erosion agent is wind (sandblasting), which carves out horizontal grooves. The sphinx body is covered with very deep and extensive vertical grooves. Vertical grooves are formed by intense rains.
The last time Egypt had intense rains was at the end of the last Ice Age, some 10 000 years ago.
So, the alternative model goes something like this:
Some time around the end of the last Ice Age, members of some forgotten people carve out a giant statue (of a lion?) from the great rock, for whatever purpose.
This statue is eroded badly in torrential rains (during hundreds or thousands of years) around the end of the last Ice Age.
The climate turns arid, the rains stop and vegetation disappears. Loose sand begin to collect in dunes. The statue is partly buried in sand, with the head jutting up.
Throughout the millenia, the head is eroded even more by wind sandblasting, until it is unrecognizable. Around the time of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the statue is uncovered from the sand.
Pharaoh Khefren (or some other, earlier pharaoh) takes a liking to it and decides to recast its unrecognizable head into his own likeness and take credit for the hole shebang.
Now, the pyramids may or may not be older than the currently accepted value, but the sphinx certainly is. I wouldnt be surprised if the pyramids are far older too.
The fact that Cheops, Chefren and Menkaure takes credit for them means nothing. Remember that it was not uncommon for a king to expropriate something someone else did as his. Also, it makes no sense that the biggest pyramid is claimed to be the oldest. If you were Pharaoh, wouldnt you want to build a bigger pyramid than your dad did? OTOH, if they merely claimed already existing structures, it makes perfect sense. First dibs...
1a): How accurate is the measurement of this misalignment? 1b): How well does it correspond to the theoretical value? 1c): How significant is this with only three data points (3 pyramids)? 1d): How likely is it that this misalignment is due to low accuracy in the pyramid construction, the measurements, or just chance?
2): This misalignment, wouldnt it appear even if the pyramids were built at some other date, as long as their relative ages remained the same?
3): Since this alignment only occurred in a very limited time period, isnt it odd that the pyramids were built just around that time then? What are the chances of that?
(3000 BC: "Sorry Pharaoh, we cant bulid ay pyramid yet, cause we will not be able to map exact north for 500 years yet...")
electromagnetic waves such as radar do not propagate in water or ice more than a few mm, depending on wavelength used of course.
Wrong. Radar waves penetrate ice just fine (depending on wavelength). Special glacier-radars are currently used to map the thickness (and the bottom topography below) of ice.
The shape of antarctica was surely not found using radar. They used seismic imaging.
Oh, but it was. They usead a little seismic shots at first, but that is way more impractical and expensive, and only gives a few point values. Radar gives you continuous profiles, and when you array many of them, a map. Another advantage is that you can do it from the air.
So the celestial pole lay on a line between Kochab and Mizar in 2467 BC. And this is taken as evidence that the pyramids were built then???
Bet there are lots of more lines between bright stars that the celestial pole lay upon at some point in history. Why not use Kochab and, say, Alkaid instead, to get a date some 1000 years older? Or, for that matter, why not use Vega, one of the very brightest stars for a date around 13000 BC???
It seems to me that this is nothing more than a blatant attempt to give the standard IMO queationable dynastical date an astronomical varnish. Circular proof.
You are wrong about it being inefficient, though. Nothing makes a person work harder than the promise of huge rewards.
Yeah, sure. Like Bill Gates works that hard. There is no one in the world whose work is worth that, or even a thousandth of it. If someone makes 10 times the average, he or she should be satisfied. You can live comfortable on that, no one needs more. But I guess some peoples greed is infinite...
If a person is capable of making 100x the amount of money I do, they have every right to do so.
No, they havent. Economics is a zero-sum game. Drawing the limit is perhaps hard, but anyone making 100x the average is IMO stealing.
There is a saying that you can get rich in three ways only:
1. Inherit the money.
2. Marry the money.
3. Steal the money.
Of course, in cases #1 and #2 the money is originally stolen too, only before, and by other people.
What is theft?
Most people would like to say its the taking of property from anyone, with force, without permission, or with deceit. (So-called IP cannot be stolen, because nothing is removed, only copied. OTOH IP does not exist, information is free.)
I would like to add that IMO charging more for a good or service than it is worth is stealing, too. How do you decide what something is worth, then? Simple: sum of worth of material and work used to make it.
Saying that the price is set by whatever someone is willing to pay is not acceptable. If you were dying of thirst in the desert and I had water, would it be ok for me to charge you $1 million for a glass of H20? Dont you think you would accept if you had the dough?
It isnt so much inherited wealth per se thats the problem, rather inherited vast wealth. Ideally no one should be allowed to get rich, because vast amounts of money means lots of power, and power always corrupts.
I am not saying that no one should be allowed to get compensated for skill and/or much hard work, just that there should be a ceiling. Of course someone who works 60 hours a week deserves more pay than someone else who works 30 (all other things being equal), and of course someone with a long expensive eduacation deserves more per hour than someone without it. Rare talent or skill should also be rewarded, but there must be a limit.
It is debatable just where the ceiling should lie, but a possibility might be 5 or 10 times the average income or fortune, whatever is reached first. Once this limit is reached everything, 100% exceeding the ceiling is taxed away.
I know this will be abhorrent to Libertarians and Capitalists, who believe that the property right is the most sacred thing there is, and that it is a Human Right to be able to make heaps of money without doing any work (the money you already have "works"), but a society with huge differencies in wealth is not only morally repugnant, but inefficient as well (large numbers of people need to be employed as police and guards to protect the haves from the have-nots, when they could have been doing something more worthwhile instead).
Well said, and so very true. As usual I dont have any mod points when I need them...
/Dervak
Re:5 questions for a direct democracy...
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Ok, certainly an executive branch of govt need to exist. The members can be voted for or appointed in some other way. What I mean by Direct Democracy is the legislative branch, as well as the function of taxation and funding. That is, I dont so much want to replace the President as Congress.
As for your questions:
1) Definately. Going to war is an extremely serious thing. Defending the nation against outside attack is another thing, which can be handled by the executive govt and the military.
2) In the case noone voted in any issue, a coin can be tossed. It obviously isnt very important if noone bothers to vote.
3) Certainly the number of bills need to be vastly decreased, laws simplified etc. Everyone should be able to understand the law - make lawyers obsolete. All bills should go for vote, I guess there could be a minimum number of votes for a bill to pass.
4) North Korea, why not? Are details of diplomatic relationships with specific countries voted on in Congress? If not, then it need not be voted on by the public either.
5) Why not? The result can be had within a few hours with electronic voting.
Hmm... I see I have raised a lot of controversy here with my, umm... radical proposal. Thanks. Even if you disagree vehemently with me, that is good, far better than indifference. I am sorry I have no time to address all the posters in turn; instead I will try to summarize:
Some might have thought I was kidding, but I am quite serious. A lot of the arguments raised against my proposal boils down to this: "People are too stupid to know their own good." If this is truly how you feel, then why should we have any so-called representative democracy either? Arent people too stupid to vote period then? Shouldnt we all return to being totally governed by supposedly enlightened monarchs or CEOs then, who can think for us and tell us what to think and do?
I dont share that pessimism. I think people can be smart if you show you trust them and dont think of them as little kids or retarded. But by all means lets start in small scale, at the local level. See how it works out, iron out the bugs in the system before moving on.
Other people talk about the tyrrany of the majority. That is a valid point, but what of the tyranny of the minority we have now then? It is true the majority of the people may have views that are repugnant to us, but it is less likely than a minority holding them. This isnt about creating Utopia, it is about creating something better than what we have now.
History shows that governments are more capable of atrocities the more dictatorial they are, because power corrupts and because the decisionmakers dont have to see their victims eyes. Do you really think a majority of the German people wanted to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers? Sure, a majority may have disliked them, but I say that something like the Holocaust would not be possible in a direct democracy.
Some people tell me that "51% is not some magic number that makes an evil thing a right thing". Indeed you are right. But how come you seem to think that 51% of the people voting for a candidate, who then does this very evil thing, somehow can make it right?
Look, I know theres a lot of bugs in my very vague proposal. Certainly a lot of the details need to be worked out. But Im still convinced that the basic premise is right.
What I would like to is to have a candidate to vote for, who explicitly states that his or her goal is to get rid of the elected representative system.
To replace with Direct Democracy. You know, the people voting directly on the issues; laws, taxes, spending etc.
Before it wasnt possible in practice in a large society, but now with the net and strong encryption it is possible. Bills could be presented on TV and voted on by the people every evening.
This would be True Democracy, not the oligocracy in disguise that we have now. But what is the probability of that ever happening without a revolution, with all the power that they stand to lose...
Slashdot Mirror
Naive, eh?
The same naivety that Gandhi showed when his movement overthrew forced the Brithish to retreat from India, without using violence.
Anyone advocating restraining free speech for nazis or otherwise discriminating against them shows fascistic tendencies himself. And I am not talking about not punishing them if they commit crimes, like assault or murder. Assault and murder is already illegal and should be punsihed accordingly. But there can be no justifiable reason for harsher sentences due to political views, no matter how disgusting, or for laws curtailing free speech, for any reason.
As others have said, this is the price we pay to be able to express our views; allowing others to do the same, no matter how vile they may seem to you. Anyone not willing to do that and at the same time stating they are pro-free speech, just not for (insert random hated group), is a hypocrite.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others..."
I am not saying this only to defend nazis, but out of a sense of self-preservation too. If it becomes acceptable, and the public becomes used to that there are thought crimes, views you can go to jail for expressing, then the black list is sure to grow. Slippery slope.
Next time it might be your political or religuous view that is outlawed. Be warned.
/Dervak
There is no way there can be, or ever can have been fusion in the Earths core. The temp there is some 5 500 K IIRC. The easiest type of fusion to occur (Deuterium fusion, which happens for a short while in Brown Dwarfs) requires some 300 000 K I think, while ordinary hydrogen fusion is an order of magnitude more still.
(And yes, I know that the required temp is dependent on pressure or density too, but the lower pressure in Earths core (compared to stars or brown dwarfs) would make the required temp still higher.)
/Dervak
Pluto is a planet. It is nearly 3 times as large as the biggest asteroid, Ceres, whereas the 2nd smallest planet, Mercury is about 2 times as large as Pluto. If we need an arbitrary size limit, it is most reasonable to draw it between Pluto and Ceres, since the gap is biggest there.
On the other hand, I think there should be a more qualitative definition, and I think the type of orbit should not be a consideration (making larger moons planets too).
In my scheme, planets are non-star bodies never having had any fusion of any kind in their cores (excluding brown dwarfs), that are large enough to be roughly spherical.
Using this, we would have 29 major planets in our solar system: apart from the ordinarly nine Luna, Ceres, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Triton and Charon would be included, which they deserve, being worlds of their own right. (Vesta, Pallas, Hyperion, Proteus and Nereid are larger than Mimas, but irregular or "squarish".
/Dervak
We must protect the rights to free speech only of those who will allow others to speak freely.
Following this logic, noone gets free speech. If you deny any one else free speech, for whatever reason, then you dont allow others to speak freely. Thus, according to the above dictum, you have no right to free speech either.
I sometimes wonder why it must be so hard for some people to understand that either you have free speech, or you dont. If you deny anyone it, for any reason, then you are no better than a nazi yourself. So you think that promoting speech you agree with makes you tolerant? The true test of tolerance is tolerating ideas you disagree with, or even find repulsive or sickening.
Thats why we must tolerate even nazis expressing themselves, because if we dont, we are no better than they.
It would also be advisable to stop demonizing them or thinking them idiotic morons. Most actually are not particularly stupid, have reasons for their stance, and the injustices they are exposed to only serve to deepen and justify their hatred for what they view as a corrupt society. The end result of the present policies will be a group of harder, more determined, relentless and fanatical nazis, more predisposed to real terorism than yelling "Sieg Heil" while drunk. Of course the police will win the confrontation in the end, but at what cost? Both in terms of victims of bombings and such, and in the Police State created thus.
If you want to improve things, rather approach them with rational arguments, understanding and love and teach them that there is a better way than the way of hate.
/Dervak
Bullshit.
Complete and utter BULLSHIT.
Where to start?
The commercial web drives the mainstream internet.
No you moron, it most certainly does not. Even the mainstream Internet exists, in spite of the commercial web, not because of it. Based on my experience I would say that the most important parts of the Internet (in terms of time spent, for the mainstream (=AOLers and such) is:
1. Email
2. Chat and/or IM
3. Information search on the Web
4. Napster
5. Online discussion (Usenet/msgboards)
6. The commercial web (buying stuff, online gaming etc.)
Remove this driving force and the web will not reach the mainstream. The web (and by extension the internet) will be used by the "geek" population, made of people like you, the reader, and will remain in the backwaters of society, stagnant. No company would have the incentive to use the internet, and in a capitalist society, companies are the only entities with resources sufficient to bring the internet to the masses.
This is like saying that without telemarketers the telephone system would collapse. Yes, we need companies to bring us the physical connections (ISPs, cable companies etc.), but as with the telephone companies are not needed for the content. The users will themselves provide the content, which will be of much higher quality than any commercial fluff. The Internet was made for the spreading of information, not to sell things, and this is what it will do.
(Side note: You are not the masses. Keep that in mind :)
But my girlfriend, who is on AOL, and my grandmother is. I know what they want and need, because I have talked to them about it.
Now, has the commercial internet peaked? The internet is a very unusual medium of commerce: very few companies made money on it (through sales of products/services). Plenty made money off of it, on the stock markets of the world. The driving force behind the commerical web was provided by inflated stock prices. Based on that, I would have to say the commercial internet peaked in February 2000. A bitter pill.
Not at all. The bubble had to burst, and it was good it happened sooner rather than later. The Internet was not made for commerce anyway.
Now, the acceleration of the growth of the internet has levelled off, but the internet is still growing.
Of course. With a fixed number of human beings, not to mention ones who can afford computers and phone lines, a geometric growth rate is unsustainable. Thats really simple math.
When was the last time you heard of somebody getting off the internet? I think that unless the internet is proven to be a profitable medium (either by new technology or a new economic paradigm (I know all of you love that word ;)), that phrase will become commonplace. The internet will die a lonely and miserable death.
Crap. Some people might indeed get off the net, just like some people throw away their TV or disconnect their phone. That hardly implies the death of TV or phone. It is possible that many companies will leave the Internet if it is proven not to be a profitable medium. If so, I say Good Riddance! The Internet was not meant to be another place of intrusive and dishonest marketing, but a place for the sharing of information.
To slightly paraphrase Jesus: ;-)
I know the /. community loves the internet. "What", I hear you say, "can we do about it?" The answer is:
No. That is not necessary, nor desirable. Profit is not what the Internet is about, nor were it ever. Ask the ones who built it.
Im really hoping that you are just a Troll, because this breaks all records in stupidity.
What do we want? An Internet for information sharing.
What do we not want? An Internet filled with advertising, marketing and other dishonesty, just like TV now.
How do we achieve it? By making it unprofitable for companies.
Sounds pretty straightforward to me.
So we shouldnt give away better products than companies can make, at a better price than they can offer? And for what? So that companies will be able to get huge profits, in exchange for lousy products and services. Good grief!
That's right. The open-source movement is making the internet unprofitable for companies,
Thats true to some extent, and thats part of the beauty of it.
removing the driving force behind the driving force behind the internet. That's not a typo.
Removing the driving force behind the corruption of the Internet, more likely. And that would IMO be a Good Thing.
Ladies and gentlemen of slashdot.org, you are faced with a difficult choice. There are 2 likely futures for the internet you have come to know and love better and more than any other group in the world. An internet that enters a gradual decline but stays true to its hacker roots, providing not the masses, but you with good, free software, and dies with the retirement of your generation, say in 20 years.
Laughable. More like it, an Internet that stays true to its hacker roots, and provides the masses with good, free software and other information, file sharing and communication. Something which grows into a distributed system without central servers, running directly on the users own machines. An ever-growing library containing all information there is; books, art, music, movies, software. A communication and publishing system from many to many, destroying the information monopoly of the govt, traditional media and corporations. No wonder they are so afraid of it. It will mean the end of their power.
Or, an internet that everybody can use, and one that will last indefinitely, but one that is irrevocably changed from the internet you have built: an internet where profitability and the almighty dollar rule supreme, and where individual voices are drowned out by the noise. I do not envy you.
In short, an Internet filled with the same kind of crap TV and the traditional media are. Made by people wanting nothing else but to get into your wallet. Filled not with information, but with disinformation, deceit and lies (that is, ads).
Make no mistake, even non-geek people mostly hate and are fed up with the constant dishonesty and intrusiveness in marketing and ads. They just dont know what to do about it.
P.S.: No bullshit about how internet!=web, please. In the popular mind, they are the same. That makes them the same. Get over it.
So I guess in the popular mind, email, chat and IM does not exist. I guess you believe in Santa too...
/Dervak
So your willing to just copy the program that someone wrote for two years and is charging money for to support his/her family. Because you copied it and gave it to all your friends who use it constantly, that programmer can no longer afford to buy food. You murderer.
You Sir, are an Idiot.
So youre not willing to buy the program that someone wrote for two years and is charging money for to support his/her family, just because you have no need for it, or that it just plain sucks. Because of your and all your friends unwillingness to all the same fork up your dough, that programmer can no longer afford to buy food. You murderer.
In short, since you seem to have a short attention span, potential loss is no loss at all. You cant lose something you never had in the first place.
/Dervak
Do we both have the blood, sweat, tears and long lonely hours that went into creating it?
Good point.
No.
Extremely bad point. Any particular reason why you think there should be more blood, sweat, tears and long lonely hours in the world? Or are you just evil?
Facts:
Spot the difference?
Information can be copied at near-zero cost. That means, that unlike with physical goods and services, I can have what you have without depriving you of it. Which in turn means that there can be no justifiable reason for obstructing copying. Your right to make lots of money is far less important than everyone elses right to get for free what they can and should have for free.
I much more prefer a world where I create what I love to do, and then give it away for free to everyone who wants it, in turn getting what others create for free, than a society where you must pay for everything, where only a pittance goes to the creators anyway, the rest fattening faceless inhuman corporations with their lawyers.
The opposition to intellectual property seem to come from varying sources:
Nope. Definately producing.
Not at all. In my kind of society there would be no rich aristocrats/businessmen. Eradicating IP will not bring this about in itself of course, but it is a good start.
Not true either.
I do want stuff for free, but I am able to and willing to give away stuff for free as well. Thus I do not fit the definition.
Yes, that one is correct.
The opponents to IP should check which category they belong to, and find out if they like being there.
The proponents of "intellectual property" seem to come from varying sources:
2. Those profiting from an old-fashioned system where artists are being screwed in the ass by rich execs/businessmen,
3. Old-fashioned IP protagonists who believe that collecting money forever from one work you made once (royalties) is fair,
4. Lawyers who will profit more no matter what since the existence of IP means more lawsuits,
5.
The proponents to IP should check which category they belong to, and find out if they like being there.
/Dervak
Dear me.
Here I was thinking that it is actually the users that are providing the content (submitting stories, posting comments) on slashdot. Why do you need money for that?
Now, of course servers and bandwidth costs real money, but thats what the ads are supposed to cover. In case they dont another solution might be needed. In 5 years I see a distributed /. running on the users machines anyway, so this might be a moot point.
/Dervak
If you read your CD it says that it is illegal, without prior consent, to copy it to another form.
So? They can write whatever they want on the CD, that they own your first-born child or your Soul, it still doesnt make it valid. The only thing thats valid legally is what the law says.
The courts have ruled that private copying, time-shifting and space-shifting as well as backup is legal. According to some, even noncommercial trading is legal. But the corps try to make you believe it is illegal. Fuck them.
Like I said, the owner of the property has the right to do with it what he will.
The point of this is that it is not property and there is no owner. COPYRIGHT!=OWNERSHIP. Copyright is a govt-granted monopoly on the commercial distribution of certain works, not ownership. That said, IMO Copyright must be destroyed, because it is so blatantly abused.
/Dervak
IIRC the Great pyramids at Gizeh were found totally empty, not even debris from rotted wood, cloth or food. The Great Pyramid (Cheops/Khufu) first was broken into by workmen under Caliph Al-Mamoun in 820 AD. No graverobbers had been there before him, because the passageway was blocked by a series of giant granite slabs, which they had to bypass by tunnelling thru the limestone to the side.
When they arrived in the King's Chamber they found a stone box, not a regular sarcophagus, but rude, unfinished, without a lid and without an inscription. They also found no trace whatsoever of burial, offerings, pottery, etc. The pyramid itself bears no inscription, except of the name of Cheops, painted by the quarry workers on a slab of the ceiling of the King's Chamber, not visible to a visitor of the Chamber.
Now, I dont necessarily think the Great Pyramids were beacons for aliens or some such, but I very much doubt they were tombs of the pharaos. Perhaps some day we will know...
/Dervak
We would be fools to assume that our own cops are guilty without actual evidence, in the form of eye-witness testimony and physical evidence...
I was speaking in general terms; of course there are cops who are not bad and corrupt and who do not abuse their position, but they are few and far between. Not because people becoming cops are more susceptible to corruption than other people, but because they are put into a position of power.
Few can resist abusing that, and its a slippery slope; you might start just by giving some "bad guy" a beating with the ol nightstick - after all, he deserves it! Then you might start tampering with evidence, if you dont find any drugs in the raid, then you plant some, because of course you know that low-life is guilty, and youre not going to let him slip away this time. Then, when some of your colleagues go a little to far and actually beat some poor guy to death, then of course you are loyal and didnt see anything "He must have fallen in the stairs, your Honor"...
Oh wait, you don't believe in those... guess you'll just have to go on your assumptions and intuitions about everything.
How the fsck do you know what I believe in? The previous post was my first on this topic. Let me tell you: I believe in a fair system, where people are treated according to their deeds, not according to how much money and power they have, the color of their skin, or their political, philosophical or religuous views. I believe in a system without anyone in power. I believe in Anarchism.
/Dervak
Yes, sometimes they do. Why? Because they are human, and all humans have moral weaknesses. But they don't lie and tamper with evidence as much as your run of the mill criminal does. And, I don't believe they are routinely harassing and locking up innocent people.
But they are. Cops are not just as bad as common people when it comes to lying and cheating - they are worse.
Why? Because cops have power, and power corrupts. Always. Throughout history, the very worst crimes have been committed by the police (and military). The examples are endless - the Spanish Inquisition, the Cheka-NKVD-KGB in the Soviet Union, Gestapo-SS in Nazi Germany, death squads in Latin America etc.
More recently, who committed the very worst atrocities in ex-Yugoslavia, including mass murder, torture, organized rapes (of children even)? Answer: the Police.
We would be fools to believe our own cops are not capable of similar stuff - the only reason they havent gone to such extremes is that they could not get away with that - yet.
/Dervak
No; the misalignment corresponds to the two particular stars used. If they'd used other stars' simultaneous transits, the relative errors would have been different.
Yes, given the accepted construction date. However, the same misaligments would have appeared with any other star pair, at some other date.
If they'd been building the pyramids some other time, they'd have found two other stars that were across the celestial pole from each other, or were on the same meridian (or whatever circles of equal RA are called - RA as in right ascension, not the sun god!). With a couple of thousand rather bright stars available, this wouldn't have been a huge problem.
Exactly. Thats my whole point. How do we know the pyramids were built around 2500 BC? The misalignment pattern for Kochab-Mizar suggests it. But the same pattern would appear for other star pairs, at other dates as well. So how do we know the date? Because the Egyptologists say so. No more, no less.
/Dervak
I may be wrong, but I'm assuming that since they say "all but two" that they did actually check this against all of the pyramids in Egypt, excluding pyramids that were not completed or those were this measurement can't be made (i.e. covered mostly by sand). I would guess that since this is such a heated topic that the misalignment from true north of each pyramid is already known and therefore easy to correlate to any data they have gathered.
Fair enough; the deviation from true north is probably pretty well known for most if not all pyramids. Im not so certain about the dates though. And Id be interested in the magnitude of the spread. "Remarkably straight line" sure sounds impressive, but its not quantitative.
Maybe I'm wrong but I have a hard time believing that with ancient records, both in Egypt and other civilations, and from radio-carbon dating of materials inside the pyramid (including the remains of the pharoahs), that Egytologists can't date the pyramids to within 1000 years.
Maybe Im just ignorant of recent finds, but I was under the impression that they actually had found no remains of pharaos in any pyramid, and certainly not in the great Gizeh ones. That they were eerily empty, and since you cannot get a radiocarbon date on rock or dust there were no radiometric dates. That the only dates comes from calculations of dynasties, and that the only reason the pyramids are thought as king tombs is because tradition says so, not because of any finds. But please correct me if I am wrong.
Also, I'm not saying that this is definetly the way that the Egyptians found true north. But it does seem to be a good theory.
Its not bad, and it is possible it is right. I just have this thing for attacking orthodoxy at any opportunity, just for the hell of it... being kinda like the Devils Advocate... ;-)
/Dervak
For question 1c), There are more than the 3 pyramids in Ghaza to verify the error in alignment.
Yes there is, but are those smaller pyramides as accurately aligned? And are their dates consistent with the model?
"When the Egyptians were constructing their tombs, there was no visible pole star within two degrees of true north, yet they were able to achieve an accuracy of just three arc minutes (one twentieth of a degree)." I highly doubt this would be achieved by chance or human error.
Indeed, but how do you know the pyramids were really built then? Because the egyptologists say so. If they were built at some other time there might have been other stars, or lines between pairs of stars, that were close to the celestial pole. Perhaps they used some other method to find north? Sighting along stones perhaps?
"By running computer simulations of the night sky back to the time of the Egyptian kingdoms, she has also identified the stars that were most probably used -- z-Ursae Majoris and g-Ursae Minoris -- one each from the constellations of The Great and The Little Bear, which had simultaneous transits in 2467 BC."
Yes they had, but very roughly 1000 years earlier beta Ursae Minoris (Kochab) and eta Ursae Majoris (Alkaid) had simultaneous transits too. And earlier still there were other simultaneous transits of bright star pairs. The only reason for choosing the Kochab-Mizar alignment seems to be because it fits the orthodox date.
For question 2), the answer is not necessarily. Because some of the pyramids are slightly east of true north and some are slightly west, and because the star(s) closest to true north vary with a 26,000 year period, I don't think there would be many other instances (in the time frame that the pyramids were built) that this could have happened. If all of the pyramids were built earlier than 2467 BC they would all be off slightly to the east and if they were all built after 2467 BC, they'd all be off to the west.
This all presupposes that the Kochab-Mizar alignment was used, rather than some other stars, or some other method, and that the pyramids were actually built in that timeframe, which is far from certain.
I say that if you hypothesize that the pyramids were built in, say 3500 BC instead, using this very same method of finding north, but using the simultaneous transits of Kochab-Alkaid instead, then this very same pattern of misalignment would appear if the construction dates were offset from each other by the same amount of time.
For question 3, I don't believe the Egyptians knew that they weren't exactly at true north. And it's not so much that they would have been less accurate at any other period of time, it's that there would have been more pyramids to either the east or west of true north depending on when they started building them. The first pyramid built that is slightly to the west of true north tells you the first pyramid build after 2467 BC. And by measuring the error, it should tell you when the pyramid was built, since they know how long it would have taken the two starts to be off from true north by that amount.
This all presupposes that they actually measured north by this method, something I am far from convinced of.
/Dervak
2.The big sphinx is WAY older than we thought. some geologist proved this.
While this isnt accepted in the main stream (yet) I find the evidence for this compelling. The facts go roughly like this:
So, the alternative model goes something like this:
Now, the pyramids may or may not be older than the currently accepted value, but the sphinx certainly is. I wouldnt be surprised if the pyramids are far older too.
The fact that Cheops, Chefren and Menkaure takes credit for them means nothing. Remember that it was not uncommon for a king to expropriate something someone else did as his. Also, it makes no sense that the biggest pyramid is claimed to be the oldest. If you were Pharaoh, wouldnt you want to build a bigger pyramid than your dad did? OTOH, if they merely claimed already existing structures, it makes perfect sense. First dibs...
/Dervak
Some questions still remain, though.
1a): How accurate is the measurement of this misalignment?
1b): How well does it correspond to the theoretical value?
1c): How significant is this with only three data points (3 pyramids)?
1d): How likely is it that this misalignment is due to low accuracy in the pyramid construction, the measurements, or just chance?
2): This misalignment, wouldnt it appear even if the pyramids were built at some other date, as long as their relative ages remained the same?
3): Since this alignment only occurred in a very limited time period, isnt it odd that the pyramids were built just around that time then? What are the chances of that?
(3000 BC: "Sorry Pharaoh, we cant bulid ay pyramid yet, cause we will not be able to map exact north for 500 years yet...")
/Dervak
electromagnetic waves such as radar do not propagate in water or ice more than a few mm, depending on wavelength used of course.
Wrong. Radar waves penetrate ice just fine (depending on wavelength). Special glacier-radars are currently used to map the thickness (and the bottom topography below) of ice.
The shape of antarctica was surely not found using radar. They used seismic imaging.
Oh, but it was. They usead a little seismic shots at first, but that is way more impractical and expensive, and only gives a few point values. Radar gives you continuous profiles, and when you array many of them, a map. Another advantage is that you can do it from the air.
/Dervak
So the celestial pole lay on a line between Kochab and Mizar in 2467 BC. And this is taken as evidence that the pyramids were built then???
Bet there are lots of more lines between bright stars that the celestial pole lay upon at some point in history. Why not use Kochab and, say, Alkaid instead, to get a date some 1000 years older? Or, for that matter, why not use Vega, one of the very brightest stars for a date around 13000 BC???
It seems to me that this is nothing more than a blatant attempt to give the standard IMO queationable dynastical date an astronomical varnish. Circular proof.
/Dervak
You are wrong about it being inefficient, though. Nothing makes a person work harder than the promise of huge rewards.
Yeah, sure. Like Bill Gates works that hard. There is no one in the world whose work is worth that, or even a thousandth of it. If someone makes 10 times the average, he or she should be satisfied. You can live comfortable on that, no one needs more. But I guess some peoples greed is infinite...
If a person is capable of making 100x the amount of money I do, they have every right to do so.
No, they havent. Economics is a zero-sum game. Drawing the limit is perhaps hard, but anyone making 100x the average is IMO stealing.
There is a saying that you can get rich in three ways only:
1. Inherit the money.
2. Marry the money.
3. Steal the money.
Of course, in cases #1 and #2 the money is originally stolen too, only before, and by other people.
What is theft?
Most people would like to say its the taking of property from anyone, with force, without permission, or with deceit. (So-called IP cannot be stolen, because nothing is removed, only copied. OTOH IP does not exist, information is free.)
I would like to add that IMO charging more for a good or service than it is worth is stealing, too. How do you decide what something is worth, then? Simple: sum of worth of material and work used to make it.
Saying that the price is set by whatever someone is willing to pay is not acceptable. If you were dying of thirst in the desert and I had water, would it be ok for me to charge you $1 million for a glass of H20? Dont you think you would accept if you had the dough?
/Dervak
It isnt so much inherited wealth per se thats the problem, rather inherited vast wealth. Ideally no one should be allowed to get rich, because vast amounts of money means lots of power, and power always corrupts.
I am not saying that no one should be allowed to get compensated for skill and/or much hard work, just that there should be a ceiling. Of course someone who works 60 hours a week deserves more pay than someone else who works 30 (all other things being equal), and of course someone with a long expensive eduacation deserves more per hour than someone without it. Rare talent or skill should also be rewarded, but there must be a limit.
It is debatable just where the ceiling should lie, but a possibility might be 5 or 10 times the average income or fortune, whatever is reached first. Once this limit is reached everything, 100% exceeding the ceiling is taxed away.
I know this will be abhorrent to Libertarians and Capitalists, who believe that the property right is the most sacred thing there is, and that it is a Human Right to be able to make heaps of money without doing any work (the money you already have "works"), but a society with huge differencies in wealth is not only morally repugnant, but inefficient as well (large numbers of people need to be employed as police and guards to protect the haves from the have-nots, when they could have been doing something more worthwhile instead).
/Dervak
Well said, and so very true. As usual I dont have any mod points when I need them...
/Dervak
Ok, certainly an executive branch of govt need to exist. The members can be voted for or appointed in some other way. What I mean by Direct Democracy is the legislative branch, as well as the function of taxation and funding. That is, I dont so much want to replace the President as Congress.
As for your questions:
1) Definately. Going to war is an extremely serious thing. Defending the nation against outside attack is another thing, which can be handled by the executive govt and the military.
2) In the case noone voted in any issue, a coin can be tossed. It obviously isnt very important if noone bothers to vote.
3) Certainly the number of bills need to be vastly decreased, laws simplified etc. Everyone should be able to understand the law - make lawyers obsolete. All bills should go for vote, I guess there could be a minimum number of votes for a bill to pass.
4) North Korea, why not? Are details of diplomatic relationships with specific countries voted on in Congress? If not, then it need not be voted on by the public either.
5) Why not? The result can be had within a few hours with electronic voting.
/Dervak
Hmm... I see I have raised a lot of controversy here with my, umm... radical proposal. Thanks. Even if you disagree vehemently with me, that is good, far better than indifference. I am sorry I have no time to address all the posters in turn; instead I will try to summarize:
Some might have thought I was kidding, but I am quite serious. A lot of the arguments raised against my proposal boils down to this: "People are too stupid to know their own good." If this is truly how you feel, then why should we have any so-called representative democracy either? Arent people too stupid to vote period then? Shouldnt we all return to being totally governed by supposedly enlightened monarchs or CEOs then, who can think for us and tell us what to think and do?
I dont share that pessimism. I think people can be smart if you show you trust them and dont think of them as little kids or retarded. But by all means lets start in small scale, at the local level. See how it works out, iron out the bugs in the system before moving on.
Other people talk about the tyrrany of the majority. That is a valid point, but what of the tyranny of the minority we have now then? It is true the majority of the people may have views that are repugnant to us, but it is less likely than a minority holding them. This isnt about creating Utopia, it is about creating something better than what we have now.
History shows that governments are more capable of atrocities the more dictatorial they are, because power corrupts and because the decisionmakers dont have to see their victims eyes. Do you really think a majority of the German people wanted to exterminate the Jews in gas chambers? Sure, a majority may have disliked them, but I say that something like the Holocaust would not be possible in a direct democracy.
Some people tell me that "51% is not some magic number that makes an evil thing a right thing". Indeed you are right. But how come you seem to think that 51% of the people voting for a candidate, who then does this very evil thing, somehow can make it right?
Look, I know theres a lot of bugs in my very vague proposal. Certainly a lot of the details need to be worked out. But Im still convinced that the basic premise is right.
/Dervak
What I would like to is to have a candidate to vote for, who explicitly states that his or her goal is to get rid of the elected representative system.
To replace with Direct Democracy. You know, the people voting directly on the issues; laws, taxes, spending etc.
Before it wasnt possible in practice in a large society, but now with the net and strong encryption it is possible. Bills could be presented on TV and voted on by the people every evening.
This would be True Democracy, not the oligocracy in disguise that we have now. But what is the probability of that ever happening without a revolution, with all the power that they stand to lose...
/Dervak