And who gave YOU the right to determine who "fits" in/. and who doesn't? Freedom of speech OK as long as everyone agrees with everything you want them to say, but not when someone disagrees with you? Nice person! Um, you probably want to take a closer look at that statement.
Seriously, if you don't like openness, what the hell are you doing on slashdot of all places? You don't have to be here, you know. OK, first thing to notice here is that the second word is if. He is not telling you what and what not to like. The latter half of the sentence is a question. Meaning he's not telling you to leave, but [if you do not like openness, why would you stay on slashdot?]
His next sentence is letting you know that you do not have to be here...it is optional, and it is left up to you to decide that.
Now, your reply here...
Freedom of speech OK as long as everyone agrees with everything you want them to say, but not when someone disagrees with you? Nice person! Freedom of speech is OK, even if the person is being an asshole. In fact, you are allowed to post here, even when you're an asshole. So, would you please quit sounding as if some great injustice has happened to you. This is a public forum, and you've got just as much right as I do to post here, but people will have a hard time listening to you, if you are hostile.
And one final thing. Slashdot, along with democratic government, along with the Roman Forum, are all systems where people talk and share ideas, out in the open. To bash wikipedia, linux, and others, and also miss the glaring examples all around you of how it does work, i.e. cities, communities, brings me to suggest that you look at the models again. Try to believe that it could work, instead of undermining your thoughts with contempt.
But remember, no one is commanding that you do something. It's all optional.
If we treat education like some service, optional, profitable, exploitable, then we will eventually get degredation over time, and the quality of education will drop. With that, the investment in the school will drop, and what do you know, education fucking drops some more.
Education is the only thing (technology is derived from the knowledge education provides), that separates our society from those of the primative past. If we treat education as anything but the highest concern, then we have failed our ancestors to learn from the past and prevent the problems of the past from manifesting now.
So, yes I fucking care.
BTW, I was ranting, but I'm not mad at the parent or anyone in particular.
Faith cannot answer those questions either. In fact, there is currently no known recourse for answering those questions. What faith does is not answer, but speculate what might be a possible answer. Given that the possibility is rational enough to be compatible without the natural worldview that every human forms from watching the forces of nature at work.
Given that neither science, nor faith can answer those questions, we have 2 possible courses of action.
Find some new school of thought that allows us to definitively conclude the answers to those questions.
Accept the infeasibility of, and the importance of, trying to answer those questions and simply live your life free of those concerns, focusing on embracing the people who share this chaotic reality with you.
Daoism really tries to convey this -- (IMO): "Look around you. See the constant flow of life to death, and death to life. The world will take care of you when you die. Do not concern yourself over things you cannot influence. Instead, focus on the lives of others who are also in the same boat as you are. Take care of each other. Embrace your Humanity. It is a gift that only a very few lifeforms in the Universe will ever get to cherish."
"Why is there lightning?" "God did it."
This is so you would understand that the food you eat (that rains help grow) comes from someone that can turn night into day (lighting) and make you shake in your boots (thunder).
"How did mountains form?" "God did it."
This it signify to you that someone can build things that are bigger than you can build.
"Why do massive bodies attract each other?" "God did it."
This is so you would understand that there is a relationship between EVERY part of this world to antoher.
"How do cells reproduce?" "God did it."
So that life goes on to acknoledge the creator
"Why is there disease?" "God did it."
So you would understand that you did something wrong with the diseased part and repent. Or alterntivaely, so that you know you will die some day. This is a total breakdown of humanity. Why should you try to give credit to your existence and your human compassion to some other being. You're humam, you're capable of great things, in and by yourself. To deny your own magnificence and place it in the hands of a figurehead is to also surrendur your humanity in the process. Enjoy being a human. Do what you can to make this world better. You don't have to have religion to make it make sense.
This is about the dumbest "theory" I've ever heard. The fourth dimension is "expanding?" As in, from one moment in time to another, it's getting bigger? Wait a second, did I just say "moment in TIME?" So you're defining time in terms of an expansion over TIME? You are stupid. Wait, I think you missed something.
This is about the dumbest "theory" I've ever heard. The fourth dimension is "expanding?" As in, from one moment in time to another, it's getting bigger? Wait a second, did I just say "moment in TIME?" So I'm defining time in terms of an expansion over TIME? I am stupid. There, fixed it for ya. You were too smug to notice that you put your words into his mouth, and then accused him of making a flawed definition.
Enough with the theatrics. No one gives two nuts about your ridiculously unattainable principles. Your participation in our society has nullified your statements. Get with the program; compromises between your freedom and security define the life you live every day. You are mistaken. I give two nuts about what the GP is saying. I think the GP has something of value to say. Maybe not put in the absolute best way possible, but the message is more important that it's envelope.
Your participation in our society has nullified your statements. Can you clarify what this means. Do you mean than anyone who lives in the US can't say anything about liberty?
There aren't enough people who know or care. Only a few of us geeks, and we don't make up an appreciable fraction of the market.
People will buy what the ads tell them to buy. End of story. We lose. Want to play the downloaded movie you just ordered from Netflix on Linux? Sorry, no dice.
I don't like it either, but it's reality. Sure, give up. Lay down and let the steam roller flatten you out. Let go of your dreams and ambitions for a free world. Surrender while you have a chance to win the war. Go ahead and tell them to take your life away.
I think you'll see that almost every oppressed society throughout history, that finally overthrew its oppressors, did so by uniting together and fighting back. It's when each person thinks of their influence individually, and realizes that he doesn't have the energy to fight the inertia of common practice, do they stay oppressed. Only when that one person, thinks of his actions and the actions of others, in a collective sense, in an united sense, does he stand a chance to make a change.
Remember grandpa Bush helped support the Nazis during WWII. Grandpa was even convicted on it!
So how can one claim to be fighting for freedom and "The American Way", while at the same time taking away that very freedom and desecrating all those men that gave up their lives war after war for freedom and keep from giving a maniacal laugh at the same time?
This administration has to be either the most dishonest or mentally challenged administration in history! George W. Bush is responsible for his own actions. Do not assert that the actions of his grandfather are his responsibility aswell. These are two different people -- you can easily disapprove of either man -- but don't merge them into one person for you to drive your rage at.
That's really not what I'm saying; the point I'm trying to make is that rather than completely disregarding "covers" as 100% useless, as the parent implies, "covers" can actually be an extremely useful tool, and ignoring them completely or not using them to any effect is pointless and juvenile. Although, it's entirely possible that I have a shallow worldview and that I'm narrow minded. No, you have a good point there; and I see that my previous response carries a hint of arrogant elitism - unwarranted; for that, I offer my apologies.
I think I see your point now; in that a book's cover, while being only the tip of the iceberg, still gives some insight into the book's purpose/content. To default the cover to insignificance, is foolish - an idealistic view, and righteous claim of keeping an open mind, yet the reality of the situation is that actions based on ideals are the same as biases themselves.
Originally, I mistook your statement to be - those who do not initially judge a book by its cover are foolish and ignorant for not gleaming informaiton from the title.
I must recognize the irony in my remark about keeping an open mind - caused by my own prejudice. Lol, damn. Sorries.
I'm pretty sure that after elementary school, judging a book by it's cover is not a bad thing. I don't understand why people tout this juvenile, cliche concept in mature discussions. Welcome to the real world, first impressions count here. If your writing a book, make a cover that adequately describes the content, don't just tack on something ridiculous for shock value alone. If the game was a tasteful discourse on the Columbine shootings, and it was named "Tasteful Discourse on the Columbine shootings," that's reasonable, but with a title like that, what else could you expect about the game other than an offensive piece of garbage. Once again, not saying it is one, but from the title and a realistic perspective, that's the impression that I get. A "cover" in any sense of the word, is a window to your content, and people need to grow up and start using them effectively. Consider this... The reason that the book is more than one page thick, is because the author cannot convey the message with one page. For you to reduce the author's entire book into a simplistic summation leads me to believe that you're not willing to encompass some expansive cognition. Having a shallow worldview makes you appear very narrow minded. Now, would that be a good first impression that I should think of you, or do you see some fundamental flaw in judgement before review?
Fair use doesn't give you the right to break the encryption on copyrighted works. Sure doesn't. But did you also know that copyright restrictions don't even apply in the first place if you are using the media for private use. Copyright only comes into play if someone is trying to publish the work of someone else. It's not even fair use to be able to do what you want to with your legally purchased DVD in your own home, in fact, that's just called plain old use.
No matter how much bullshit these companies try to control your every move, realize that once I purchase that little plastic disc, and go home, I can do whatever the fuck I want to, as long as what I do only stays in my own private house.
Now, on a completely different note, breaking encryption schemes falls under the long arm of the DMCA. My opinion of the DMCA is that the piece of legislation is not even worthy to wipe my ass with.
I'm sorry, but the reality is that Linux pales in comparison to Windows with regards to user friendliness. Why are you sorry? Linux pales in comparison to Windows with regards to user friendliness. What exactly is user friendliness? Do by UF, you mean ease of use, simplistic layout, or few options? If you mean Windows is easy and simple to use, then I believe that your argument caters to people who are ignorant and simplistic.
When something is simplistic, it has little flexibility in what it can do or be used for. simple in design and simplistic are two different things. Simple in design means that the core mechanisms of something are simple, but the mechanisms combined, or oriented differently, can yield high flexibility.
Simplistic means that the overall configurability of something is limited or narrow. So If you are talking about a computer application being simplistic, then it implies that you can't do much with that application. If you can't do much with it, then preference of a simplistic application over a complex application, (or CLI pipeing of applications), then to me, it implies that the person is simplistic or, more likely, stupid.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that Linux should be dumbed down so that idiots can use it with little or no thought, and so that they don't cry about it when productivity requires intelligence. That's like saying Getting a medical degree is too difficult for the majority of stupid people, let's lower the requirements and "make it easy"(tm) so that they can all graduate with honors. Yeah, I'm sure that we would make great strides in the advancement in the field of medicine. Let's aim for the ground so that the idiots feel secure. Or how about you try and look to the horizon, and beyond to the stars, to see the real power behind cognition. Computers are very fast at mathematics. People could expand their minds, and embrace mathematics and its applications.
Every generation in Human history has almost always looked towards the past and previous generations, and noted how society had primitive and barbaric beliefs and practices. How ignorant the people of the past were.
Compare Mideaval medical knowledge to modern medical knowledge and you can see what I mean. Or how people thought the world worked, Earth is the cetner of the universe, planets revolve around the Sun, the Earth is flat, etc.
What makes you have any reason to think that this current generation is somehow different, and that we are not subject to the same fate?
Or should we recognize this, and try to expand our thinking, and explore new ideas. Making life simplistic and easy, is inherently slowing the advancement of the Human Race. Newton, Galileo, Einstein, and others were initially not famous during their lifetimes. They were as famous as everyday people at one point in their lives. Why wait around for the next one to show up, when each of us could try to expand our thinking and our knowledge now, and release the parachute slowing Mankind from reaching the stars -- figurative stars, I know we already physically explored space =P
I think online file sharing will end now. No, napster bit the dust and looked what happened. Just cause the MPAA wants to use the BitTorrent Protocol for DRM warfare, doesn't mean that they have control over all people using the same protocol.
It's like if the RIAA took the source code for Firefox and made a new browser called "Lamefox", which was highly restritive. They are using the HTTP protocol, but they will have almost zero impact on the current and future users of firefox.
Remember, BT is a protocol, not just a program. Azureus is (IMO) a very good BitTorrent program, that's open source as well.
I am not saying that they are the pinnacle of morality. I am saying that in some ways they are more ethical than the Western world.K... you could also say that dead people are in some ways more peaceful than living people. But both of those statements make irrelevant points. The issue at hand is the termination of your life over someone else's morality crusade. Tell me, would you like to be on the recieving end of the Chinese Judicial System?
I'm not trying to troll. If I were, I would be an Anonymous Coward. These crass web sites not only typically have no value as information, they are crass in the way that they mock God's evolution. They go against my ethics. I know I'm not alone in this.Ok. Here's my counter example.
Not only does your religous verbal defacation have no value as information, you are an ass in the way you think that because you don't agree, it's ok to send people to life in jail. Your intolerance goes against my ethics, I know I'm not alone in this. Hey everyone, let's lynch this person for being an ass.
Oh wait, I forgot...Free Speech.
You have the ability and the right to not view porn if you don't want to. You have the ability and right to install internet filtering software on your child's computer to "prevent harmful viewing of information". I personally believe that trying to kill off all the "bad" websites in way more harmful than letting a child see them, for one being, that child will have a very shallow and narrow understanding of life if you do. BUT, that's just my opinion and I'm not going to murder you because you think differently.
Be grateful you have the right in this country to say what you did in your posts; say them and not fear that the government will kill you. Say them and expect the worst thing that could happen is a bunch of pissed off people reply to your post. Respect that right because that is the VERY THING you say China destroyed, and did a good job at that.
And on a different topic... WTF is "God's evolution"?
I thought if you used the words God + Evolution side by side, then it would cause a massive implosion of the universe...
Hm... but if you're falling, you're accelerating at 1G, thus cancelling out gravitation, aren't you?Sort of... When you are in a free fall you are being affected by the Earth's gravity, which in your case is 1G. When you stand on the ground, you are still being affected by 1G, but this time you are fighting that pull with your legs. So you are not cancelling out gravity, a freefall just means you have nothing to counter your 1G acceleration/freefall. Even if you leave the planet, gravitational forces still affect you. The really cool thing is that gravity is instantaneous - meaning that it is not a wave that travels at the speed of light. If you could simply remove the Sun, then all the planets would instantly assume tangent vectors and immediately travel away from the Solar system - it would not take the Earth 8 minutes to break away from the Sun (the time it takes for light to travel that distance) - As soon as the Sun dissaperared, the Earth would immediately change its course.
So when he was saying that nothing can experience 0G, what he meant was...
because gravity is instantaneously tramsmitted, then we are all being affected by the gravitational pull of all objects in the universe. No matter how remote or distant you place something in the deepest, darkest regions of space, it is still being pulled on by gravity from other objects. It's just that the gravitational pull is so small, it is almost 0G, but not exactly 0G.
better read "Utopia" again... it was a very repressive imaginary society, and it was not designed to make people living there happy.
From Wikipedia:
Utopia, in its most common and general positive meaning, refers to an imaginary, ideal civilization, which may range from a city to a world, regarded to be attainable in the future by some. Human efforts to create a better, or perhaps perfect society are called utopianism. Ideas which could be/are considered able to radically better the world are often called utopian ideas.
True, there are some negative takes on utopian societies, but I was not talking about the negative world, the book "utopia" does encompass all utopian ideas.
I was talking about the possibility that Human Society does not have to be this hard, this shitty, this cruel. We can make it better.
No, I'm saying the sports program's budget is irrelevent in that IT PAYS FOR ITSELF. Whether varsity sports belongs within an education system, is unimportant to the question of whether they're drawing money away from other student services, because they aren't!
Understandable... But the point that I was making is that, if we really want to have a quality education system, we should not rely on money to do so. Education is vital for the advancement of the Human Race. Without it, we are no different from our dark age ancestors.
So the fact that our society only upholds education because it's mandatory, yet won't give it vitality because it doesn't make money is, in my mind, an atrocious approach to education.
Treating the education system the way we do, you could compare to this line of rationale: going to the doctor's office always costs me money, and doesn't make money for society, it just drains it, so lets get rid of the health care system so we can stop sinking money into the health care black hole.
I'm sure you immediately see a problem with doing away with health care. I'm not so sure that most of soceity sees the problem with treating the education system as a burden, like it currently is.
And another thought... Why do we have 'secondary education'? Why can't our society build public institutions that take a student from elementary levels to doctorate ones in the same institution? Why should the public school system stop providing education at a rudamentary level? I don't think that 12th grade comes close to mirroring the advancements that the Human Race has achieved over the past couple thousand years. So you have to pay the big bucks to get a quality tutoring, i.e. college, to get to those societal advancements? Seems like we don't value the hard work our ancestors have done to give us relatively modern understanding of the world. I don't think that Galileo thought you would have to pay so much money to be taught his ideas in a quality manor, several hundred years in the future. I would like to think Galileo thought that society would have advanced enough to the point that any person would be provided access to the fruits of Human knoweldge, and not have to pay an arm and a leg to get it.
But that's just my view, and not the view of most of society. But do you see my reasoning? Do you agree with my rationale? Do you think we should value education more?
I blame it on lacklustre parenting skills. I also blame the seeming lack of common sense new generations have on the same. (See: excessive 'Health and Safety' in general)
In a previous post of mine, I gave an explanation of how I thought trying to pick just a few seemingly obvious reasons for the problems of society was a bad approach. I know it's a long comment, but I really put a lot of thought and drive into it.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206202&cid =16897642
What might be more interesting is the way that all these other companies are beginning to posture themselves around openness, Free patents, and some kind of IP commons. Maybe it's starting to become obvious to them just how destructive and costly these policies of using arsenals of patents to protect themselves and destroy rivals are. Vastly greater profits are possible with an intellectual commons from which everyone can benefit. It destabilizes the winner-takes-all dynamic, and allows a more diverse and competitive market to take its place.
When I read things like this, I can't keep from thinking to myself: the wonderful possiblity of being alive during the years that Humanity decided to take its next step to utopia.
And it reaffirms my far-fetched hope and dream that maybe Humanity wasn't doomed from the start. You've got my support guys, and I urge you to keep going in this direction: Lowering the barriers that limit the actions of others, encouraging them to do well, and eventually people will evolve to a state in which those barriers will serve no purpose.
What do you think a gifted child needs, particularly? Gifted children are already pretty much set; they don't need one on one instruction, they don't need remedial materials. Between the internet and local libraries, the one thing often missing from such a program is a talented gifted education teacher to guide them and fill something more then the "supervisor" role they often fall into. Google's lecture series alone holds enough interesting material that a teacher in a gifted education program could put a diverse exposure to subjects.
Of course, the sports program is something that A) draws in money, and B) gets local and state attention, and serves to advertise student athletes to recruiters working for our bizarre college athletic program. Basically, football should just about pay for the whole thing; if people paid to watch your Knowledge Bowl team, maybe you'd have gotten the pocket protectors or whatever it is you're seeking here.
So you're defending the sports program because it makes money and brings in support? Why not look past the shortcommings of our capitalist society and see the real value in higher level education - which no athletic department, drama club, math team, or spelling bee could ever provide: An inclusive approach to the fruits of real education. Not "Hooked on Phonics" or "Accelerated Reader" education, but an approach that actually gets people to want to learn about the different domains of our collective Human knoweledge.
Think about the quality of work a volunteer effort produces compared to that where the workers were enslaved into doing it. Do you think the quality, not productivity, of one is most likely better than the other?
This is why supporting the athletic teams because they make money is a bad approach in my mind - it is an efficient improvement, but entirely in the wrong direction.
Oh, and I may be in a minority here as well, but back in high school, my school spent more money on our athletic teams (uniforms, coaches, facilities, etc.) than they spent on any kind of specialized education materials or programs. When it comes to education, they want all kids to be "equal" so that no one's self esteem is hurt, but god forbid they apply that same criteria to their precious sports teams.
You might be a minority, but Copernicus, Galileo, and Pasteur never had the support of the masses either.
I, for one, agree with you. I think that our society could get its head out of its ass if we actually used the painfully acquired knowelwdge the Human Race has battled the ages for.
But no, lets throw away thousands of years of effort of the people who lived before us, who fought the ignorant masses of their day, to give us our relatively modern understanding of the world. Lets take their sacrifices and dreams of an utopian society, and smash them with our high school football team's budget./sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
But both of these are right, it depends on the context used.
His next sentence is letting you know that you do not have to be here...it is optional, and it is left up to you to decide that.
Now, your reply here...
Freedom of speech OK as long as everyone agrees with everything you want them to say, but not when someone disagrees with you? Nice person! Freedom of speech is OK, even if the person is being an asshole. In fact, you are allowed to post here, even when you're an asshole. So, would you please quit sounding as if some great injustice has happened to you. This is a public forum, and you've got just as much right as I do to post here, but people will have a hard time listening to you, if you are hostile.And one final thing. Slashdot, along with democratic government, along with the Roman Forum, are all systems where people talk and share ideas, out in the open. To bash wikipedia, linux, and others, and also miss the glaring examples all around you of how it does work, i.e. cities, communities, brings me to suggest that you look at the models again. Try to believe that it could work, instead of undermining your thoughts with contempt.
But remember, no one is commanding that you do something. It's all optional.
That would be a typo. The word is supposed to be 'primitive'. But please, don't let a misspelled word steal your focus away from the message itself.
If we treat education like some service, optional, profitable, exploitable, then we will eventually get degredation over time, and the quality of education will drop. With that, the investment in the school will drop, and what do you know, education fucking drops some more.
Education is the only thing (technology is derived from the knowledge education provides), that separates our society from those of the primative past. If we treat education as anything but the highest concern, then we have failed our ancestors to learn from the past and prevent the problems of the past from manifesting now.
So, yes I fucking care.
BTW, I was ranting, but I'm not mad at the parent or anyone in particular.
Given that neither science, nor faith can answer those questions, we have 2 possible courses of action.
Daoism really tries to convey this -- (IMO): "Look around you. See the constant flow of life to death, and death to life. The world will take care of you when you die. Do not concern yourself over things you cannot influence. Instead, focus on the lives of others who are also in the same boat as you are. Take care of each other. Embrace your Humanity. It is a gift that only a very few lifeforms in the Universe will ever get to cherish."
This is so you would understand that the food you eat (that rains help grow) comes from someone that can turn night into day (lighting) and make you shake in your boots (thunder).
"How did mountains form?" "God did it."
This it signify to you that someone can build things that are bigger than you can build.
"Why do massive bodies attract each other?" "God did it."
This is so you would understand that there is a relationship between EVERY part of this world to antoher.
"How do cells reproduce?" "God did it."
So that life goes on to acknoledge the creator
"Why is there disease?" "God did it."
So you would understand that you did something wrong with the diseased part and repent. Or alterntivaely, so that you know you will die some day. This is a total breakdown of humanity. Why should you try to give credit to your existence and your human compassion to some other being. You're humam, you're capable of great things, in and by yourself. To deny your own magnificence and place it in the hands of a figurehead is to also surrendur your humanity in the process. Enjoy being a human. Do what you can to make this world better. You don't have to have religion to make it make sense.
Your participation in our society has nullified your statements. Can you clarify what this means. Do you mean than anyone who lives in the US can't say anything about liberty?
Well put.
There aren't enough people who know or care. Only a few of us geeks, and we don't make up an appreciable fraction of the market.
People will buy what the ads tell them to buy. End of story. We lose. Want to play the downloaded movie you just ordered from Netflix on Linux? Sorry, no dice.
I don't like it either, but it's reality.
Sure, give up. Lay down and let the steam roller flatten you out. Let go of your dreams and ambitions for a free world. Surrender while you have a chance to win the war. Go ahead and tell them to take your life away.
I think you'll see that almost every oppressed society throughout history, that finally overthrew its oppressors, did so by uniting together and fighting back. It's when each person thinks of their influence individually, and realizes that he doesn't have the energy to fight the inertia of common practice, do they stay oppressed. Only when that one person, thinks of his actions and the actions of others, in a collective sense, in an united sense, does he stand a chance to make a change.
http://www.digitalfreedom.org/
So how can one claim to be fighting for freedom and "The American Way", while at the same time taking away that very freedom and desecrating all those men that gave up their lives war after war for freedom and keep from giving a maniacal laugh at the same time?
This administration has to be either the most dishonest or mentally challenged administration in history! George W. Bush is responsible for his own actions. Do not assert that the actions of his grandfather are his responsibility aswell. These are two different people -- you can easily disapprove of either man -- but don't merge them into one person for you to drive your rage at.
I think I see your point now; in that a book's cover, while being only the tip of the iceberg, still gives some insight into the book's purpose/content. To default the cover to insignificance, is foolish - an idealistic view, and righteous claim of keeping an open mind, yet the reality of the situation is that actions based on ideals are the same as biases themselves.
Originally, I mistook your statement to be - those who do not initially judge a book by its cover are foolish and ignorant for not gleaming informaiton from the title.
I must recognize the irony in my remark about keeping an open mind - caused by my own prejudice. Lol, damn. Sorries.
No matter how much bullshit these companies try to control your every move, realize that once I purchase that little plastic disc, and go home, I can do whatever the fuck I want to, as long as what I do only stays in my own private house.
Now, on a completely different note, breaking encryption schemes falls under the long arm of the DMCA. My opinion of the DMCA is that the piece of legislation is not even worthy to wipe my ass with.
Linux pales in comparison to Windows with regards to user friendliness. What exactly is user friendliness? Do by UF, you mean ease of use, simplistic layout, or few options? If you mean Windows is easy and simple to use, then I believe that your argument caters to people who are ignorant and simplistic.
When something is simplistic, it has little flexibility in what it can do or be used for. simple in design and simplistic are two different things. Simple in design means that the core mechanisms of something are simple, but the mechanisms combined, or oriented differently, can yield high flexibility.
Simplistic means that the overall configurability of something is limited or narrow. So If you are talking about a computer application being simplistic, then it implies that you can't do much with that application. If you can't do much with it, then preference of a simplistic application over a complex application, (or CLI pipeing of applications), then to me, it implies that the person is simplistic or, more likely, stupid.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that Linux should be dumbed down so that idiots can use it with little or no thought, and so that they don't cry about it when productivity requires intelligence. That's like saying Getting a medical degree is too difficult for the majority of stupid people, let's lower the requirements and "make it easy"(tm) so that they can all graduate with honors. Yeah, I'm sure that we would make great strides in the advancement in the field of medicine. Let's aim for the ground so that the idiots feel secure. Or how about you try and look to the horizon, and beyond to the stars, to see the real power behind cognition. Computers are very fast at mathematics. People could expand their minds, and embrace mathematics and its applications.
Every generation in Human history has almost always looked towards the past and previous generations, and noted how society had primitive and barbaric beliefs and practices. How ignorant the people of the past were.
Compare Mideaval medical knowledge to modern medical knowledge and you can see what I mean. Or how people thought the world worked, Earth is the cetner of the universe, planets revolve around the Sun, the Earth is flat, etc.
What makes you have any reason to think that this current generation is somehow different, and that we are not subject to the same fate?
Or should we recognize this, and try to expand our thinking, and explore new ideas. Making life simplistic and easy, is inherently slowing the advancement of the Human Race. Newton, Galileo, Einstein, and others were initially not famous during their lifetimes. They were as famous as everyday people at one point in their lives. Why wait around for the next one to show up, when each of us could try to expand our thinking and our knowledge now, and release the parachute slowing Mankind from reaching the stars -- figurative stars, I know we already physically explored space =P
It's like if the RIAA took the source code for Firefox and made a new browser called "Lamefox", which was highly restritive. They are using the HTTP protocol, but they will have almost zero impact on the current and future users of firefox.
Remember, BT is a protocol, not just a program. Azureus is (IMO) a very good BitTorrent program, that's open source as well.
I am not saying that they are the pinnacle of morality. I am saying that in some ways they are more ethical than the Western world.K... you could also say that dead people are in some ways more peaceful than living people. But both of those statements make irrelevant points. The issue at hand is the termination of your life over someone else's morality crusade. Tell me, would you like to be on the recieving end of the Chinese Judicial System?
I'm not trying to troll. If I were, I would be an Anonymous Coward. These crass web sites not only typically have no value as information, they are crass in the way that they mock God's evolution. They go against my ethics. I know I'm not alone in this.Ok. Here's my counter example.
Not only does your religous verbal defacation have no value as information, you are an ass in the way you think that because you don't agree, it's ok to send people to life in jail. Your intolerance goes against my ethics, I know I'm not alone in this. Hey everyone, let's lynch this person for being an ass.
Oh wait, I forgot...Free Speech.
You have the ability and the right to not view porn if you don't want to. You have the ability and right to install internet filtering software on your child's computer to "prevent harmful viewing of information". I personally believe that trying to kill off all the "bad" websites in way more harmful than letting a child see them, for one being, that child will have a very shallow and narrow understanding of life if you do. BUT, that's just my opinion and I'm not going to murder you because you think differently.
Be grateful you have the right in this country to say what you did in your posts; say them and not fear that the government will kill you. Say them and expect the worst thing that could happen is a bunch of pissed off people reply to your post. Respect that right because that is the VERY THING you say China destroyed, and did a good job at that.
And on a different topic... WTF is "God's evolution"?
I thought if you used the words God + Evolution side by side, then it would cause a massive implosion of the universe...
So when he was saying that nothing can experience 0G, what he meant was...
because gravity is instantaneously tramsmitted, then we are all being affected by the gravitational pull of all objects in the universe. No matter how remote or distant you place something in the deepest, darkest regions of space, it is still being pulled on by gravity from other objects. It's just that the gravitational pull is so small, it is almost 0G, but not exactly 0G.
I was talking about the possibility that Human Society does not have to be this hard, this shitty, this cruel. We can make it better.
So the fact that our society only upholds education because it's mandatory, yet won't give it vitality because it doesn't make money is, in my mind, an atrocious approach to education.
Treating the education system the way we do, you could compare to this line of rationale: going to the doctor's office always costs me money, and doesn't make money for society, it just drains it, so lets get rid of the health care system so we can stop sinking money into the health care black hole.
I'm sure you immediately see a problem with doing away with health care. I'm not so sure that most of soceity sees the problem with treating the education system as a burden, like it currently is.
And another thought... Why do we have 'secondary education'? Why can't our society build public institutions that take a student from elementary levels to doctorate ones in the same institution? Why should the public school system stop providing education at a rudamentary level? I don't think that 12th grade comes close to mirroring the advancements that the Human Race has achieved over the past couple thousand years. So you have to pay the big bucks to get a quality tutoring, i.e. college, to get to those societal advancements? Seems like we don't value the hard work our ancestors have done to give us relatively modern understanding of the world. I don't think that Galileo thought you would have to pay so much money to be taught his ideas in a quality manor, several hundred years in the future. I would like to think Galileo thought that society would have advanced enough to the point that any person would be provided access to the fruits of Human knoweldge, and not have to pay an arm and a leg to get it.
But that's just my view, and not the view of most of society. But do you see my reasoning? Do you agree with my rationale? Do you think we should value education more?
And it reaffirms my far-fetched hope and dream that maybe Humanity wasn't doomed from the start. You've got my support guys, and I urge you to keep going in this direction: Lowering the barriers that limit the actions of others, encouraging them to do well, and eventually people will evolve to a state in which those barriers will serve no purpose.
Think about the quality of work a volunteer effort produces compared to that where the workers were enslaved into doing it. Do you think the quality, not productivity, of one is most likely better than the other?
This is why supporting the athletic teams because they make money is a bad approach in my mind - it is an efficient improvement, but entirely in the wrong direction.
I, for one, agree with you. I think that our society could get its head out of its ass if we actually used the painfully acquired knowelwdge the Human Race has battled the ages for.
But no, lets throw away thousands of years of effort of the people who lived before us, who fought the ignorant masses of their day, to give us our relatively modern understanding of the world. Lets take their sacrifices and dreams of an utopian society, and smash them with our high school football team's budget.