"Societies get divided up based on race, class, and religion."
And that is the problem.
Capitalism encourages people/business to compete to sell their products and services, the _reward_ is money, thats fine. The problem is that money is not only a reward, but also a means of _survival_.
So people who cant compete for the "reward" depend on social security to survive, its that or starve on the street.
So when a society has financial difficulties, it has to choose to either reduce the _reward_ for the rich or make it harder for the the poor to _survive_.
If a society doesnt want division between rich and poor, then choosing to reduce the _reward_ is the only reasonable choice, as those who need money for _survival_ dont have a choice.
It takes two sides to have an argument, if you think its all the other persons fault then you should realize you are biased.
Didnt your grandmother tell you "preventing is better than cure" ?
Harsh punishment might stop known wrongdoers from repeating their actions, but its not going to stop people from being in the situation where they would consider "turning bad".
If people feel like they are part of society, they wont harm it, and go to great lengths to protect it.
What should happen is for the government to try and understand why these people became so desperate and opportunist in the first place, and try and stop people from getting into that situation.
If you understand the person/group your in conflict with, then your opposition to it becomes more effectively.
Get together and workout how to prevent people from _wanting_ to cause such social disruption in the future ? or Go to extreme lengths to make sure every wrongdoer is punished to the maximum extent of the law.
For some reason I thought you pommies where more socially evolved, and actually looked after your people.
Hmm, ive certainly done a lot of "Analysis Paralysis", but i dont see it as a complete waste of time.
During analysis, even if you feel you are getting nowhere, you are usually still defining the problem better, even if its only in your own head. It is much hard to measure progress during analysis, perhaps a lot of cases of paralysis are misdiagnosed.
I would be very concerned about following someone who had the opposite of "Analysis Paralysis", who came out with a design in quick time. I would be asking if they really understand the problem.
With design, you never completely start from scratch if you keep the same team. With code you can end up starting from scratch, but you can replace the team.
Where did everything come from ? I feel everything is too far away, is this a common perception ? There seems to be a lot of useless stuff around, are you happy with the composition of everything ? If we could change the form of everything, what should we change it too ?
"Anonymity allows people to act without fear of repercussion. I wish that human nature didn't make this a problem."
What your saying is that you believe human nature is a problem, and anonymity is a _symptom_ of that problem.
People can be anonymous without being irresponsible, so its not anonymity thatâ(TM)s the problem. Learn about causality, logic, and all that stuff and you will understand.
e.g Speeding is illegal because crashing is a problem
"We tend to judge our society by our technology advancements not our advancements in basic human behavior. Take away the technology and we are no different then the people who lived in the Roman Empire."
'The "true" nature of man can be seen in all wars and everywhere where society and responsibility is suspended. Taming our true nature is civilisation.'
I think you are being pessimistic to claim that war reflects our true nature.
Our true nature is a balance between different emotions, love and hate being two of them.
Perhaps anonymity just helps people act according to their true nature.
Its a bit out of my depth, but there are theories of "moral development", children learn what they can do, then if its safe to do it, lastly if its _right_ to do it.
I guess these kids morality wouldnt be as evolved as adults, so perhaps the experiment is just measuring moral development of the sample, rather then reflecting the moral position of the greater human society.
Anonymity can make it easier to get away with being irresponsible, but a responsible person wouldnt want to get away with being irresponsible (bad way of saying it i know).
If Anonymity allows people to show their true self, and we dont like what we see, its not anonymity thats the problem.
Its not the federal government job to impose laws governing "state issues", and for whatever (stupid) reason, the issue of R18+ is considered an issue for the states.
IFF all the states can agree then its easy for the federal government to make a federal law, they cant be accused of taking power away from the states.
If the federal government try and do it without the states it could be challenged on constitutional grounds.
What i dont understand is why the states dont implement these laws in their own state, without a national agreement.
Yes i do realize individuals can sue for enforcement. But the opinion ive heard is that if all copyright holders can act in unison, then it makes greatly increases their ability to settle for damages.
To me open source to me is about "working together", and our leaders are now telling us not to work together in a legal sense.
It is important to protect ourselves from exploitation, but ny concern is that all the negative publicity covering these harmony agreements will not only prevent corporations exploiting individual coders, it will also prevent individual coders working together. We are "cutting of our nose despite our face"
Of the tens of thousands of open source projects, by guess is the vast majority of them are not run by a corporation.
I havent seen anyone of note stand up for these Harmony Agreements, are they so bad that even small non-profits should avoid them ?
I thought having copyrights centralized helped enforcement, opens the door for open source developers to get damages from corporate exploiters who violate the license, isnt that a good thing ?
"If they don't want to play by the rules for the (whatever) they are free to switch to a (whatever)."
How about you grow up ?
Just because something can be done in theory, doesnâ(TM)t mean that its practical, or desirable.
Instead of making ambit(?) claims (lol, am i doing it now) how about describing the reasoning why the rules are important, and the prof's and cons of changing whatever.
Hindsight is 20/20, and you repeated yourself. Nobody ever thinks these are good except the willing participants and the delusional.
The grandparent stated that "religion discourages unorganized violence", my point was that religions do a lot of organized violence (such as Holly Wars) which counters the reduction of unorgansed violence religous people do.
Actually, i can see how my post was confusing, i used gay bashing and genital mutilation as examples of unorganized violence done by religious people, but actually it is still pretty organized. Someone has to make and put up those "God Hates Fags" posters. And those genitals have to me mutilated in a God pleasing way, im sure it takes a lot of skill, they probably have courses in it.
And yes im sure most religious people are delusional.
2. Revival in religion. Yea I know this is Slashdot and a lot of the readers here are Atheists or against religion in one form or an other, but there has been a resurgence in religious people. Which teaches at least to stop people from doing unorganized violence.
Yea, the organized violence isnt too bad, its the unorganized stuff thats BAD. Oh man, especially when you see an unorganized person doing unorganized violence, with their scruffy appearance, bringing the wrong weapons, its just soo unprofessional, why do they even bother...
GOOD Violence: Crusades, Holly wars; BAD Violence: Gay bashing, Genital mutilation (unless its properly organized);/sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
"Societies get divided up based on race, class, and religion."
And that is the problem.
Capitalism encourages people/business to compete to sell their products and services, the _reward_ is money, thats fine. The problem is that money is not only a reward, but also a means of _survival_.
So people who cant compete for the "reward" depend on social security to survive, its that or starve on the street.
So when a society has financial difficulties, it has to choose to either reduce the _reward_ for the rich or make it harder for the the poor to _survive_.
If a society doesnt want division between rich and poor, then choosing to reduce the _reward_ is the only reasonable choice, as those who need money for _survival_ dont have a choice.
It takes two sides to have an argument, if you think its all the other persons fault then you should realize you are biased.
Didnt your grandmother tell you "preventing is better than cure" ?
Harsh punishment might stop known wrongdoers from repeating their actions, but its not going to stop people from being in the situation where they would consider "turning bad".
If people feel like they are part of society, they wont harm it, and go to great lengths to protect it.
What should happen is for the government to try and understand why these people became so desperate and opportunist in the first place, and try and stop people from getting into that situation.
If you understand the person/group your in conflict with, then your opposition to it becomes more effectively.
Do some good ... do you mean,
Get together and workout how to prevent people from _wanting_ to cause such social disruption in the future ? or
Go to extreme lengths to make sure every wrongdoer is punished to the maximum extent of the law.
For some reason I thought you pommies where more socially evolved, and actually looked after your people.
Hmm, ive certainly done a lot of "Analysis Paralysis", but i dont see it as a complete waste of time.
During analysis, even if you feel you are getting nowhere, you are usually still defining the problem better, even if its only in your own head. It is much hard to measure progress during analysis, perhaps a lot of cases of paralysis are misdiagnosed.
I would be very concerned about following someone who had the opposite of "Analysis Paralysis", who came out with a design in quick time. I would be asking if they really understand the problem.
With design, you never completely start from scratch if you keep the same team. With code you can end up starting from scratch, but you can replace the team.
"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil" - Donald Knuth
But was he referring to designing software, or writing the code for the design ?
Very very hard to waste time at the design phase, much easier to waste time on the implementation.
The purpose of a real life protest is to show dissent, to interrupt the normal routine, to express solidarity by acting in unison.
Is a DDOS that different from a real life protest that participants deserve to go to jail ?
The plan the USA has to pay it back is to tax the poor (who dont have much money) and give the rich (who have lots of money) tax cuts.
USA fails at taxation.
Where did everything come from ?
I feel everything is too far away, is this a common perception ?
There seems to be a lot of useless stuff around, are you happy with the composition of everything ?
If we could change the form of everything, what should we change it too ?
Does this make me a troll ?
"Anonymity allows people to act without fear of repercussion. I wish that human nature didn't make this a problem."
What your saying is that you believe human nature is a problem, and anonymity is a _symptom_ of that problem.
People can be anonymous without being irresponsible, so its not anonymity thatâ(TM)s the problem. Learn about causality, logic, and all that stuff and you will understand.
e.g Speeding is illegal because crashing is a problem
"We tend to judge our society by our technology advancements not our advancements in basic human behavior. Take away the technology and we are no different then the people who lived in the Roman Empire."
I do very strongly agree with this statement.
Have you ever read of Platos theory of forms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms ?
It is very unfortunate that so much of our technological advancements involve the lowest form of reality, which is impressions of physical reality.
Anyway, i dont see War are reflective of our true nature, War is an extreme human _behavior_ its not a belief or emotion.
Conflict is a _reaction_ to a difference in peoples true nature.
'The "true" nature of man can be seen in all wars and everywhere where society and responsibility is suspended. Taming our true nature is civilisation.'
I think you are being pessimistic to claim that war reflects our true nature.
Our true nature is a balance between different emotions, love and hate being two of them.
Perhaps anonymity just helps people act according to their true nature.
Its a bit out of my depth, but there are theories of "moral development", children learn what they can do, then if its safe to do it, lastly if its _right_ to do it.
I guess these kids morality wouldnt be as evolved as adults, so perhaps the experiment is just measuring moral development of the sample, rather then reflecting the moral position of the greater human society.
Anonymity can make it easier to get away with being irresponsible, but a responsible person wouldnt want to get away with being irresponsible (bad way of saying it i know).
If Anonymity allows people to show their true self, and we dont like what we see, its not anonymity thats the problem.
"don't go trying to distort the reasons for your arrest to try and trick people into supporting you"
Are you claiming Aaron Swartz is trying to trick people to get their support, evidence ?
More specifically are you claiming he submitted the story, or are you just another extremist complaining about extremists ?
Its not the federal government job to impose laws governing "state issues", and for whatever (stupid) reason, the issue of R18+ is considered an issue for the states.
IFF all the states can agree then its easy for the federal government to make a federal law, they cant be accused of taking power away from the states.
If the federal government try and do it without the states it could be challenged on constitutional grounds.
What i dont understand is why the states dont implement these laws in their own state, without a national agreement.
Yes i do realize individuals can sue for enforcement. But the opinion ive heard is that if all copyright holders can act in unison, then it makes greatly increases their ability to settle for damages.
To me open source to me is about "working together", and our leaders are now telling us not to work together in a legal sense.
It is important to protect ourselves from exploitation, but ny concern is that all the negative publicity covering these harmony agreements will not only prevent corporations exploiting individual coders, it will also prevent individual coders working together. We are "cutting of our nose despite our face"
Of the tens of thousands of open source projects, by guess is the vast majority of them are not run by a corporation.
I havent seen anyone of note stand up for these Harmony Agreements, are they so bad that even small non-profits should avoid them ?
I thought having copyrights centralized helped enforcement, opens the door for open source developers to get damages from corporate exploiters who violate the license, isnt that a good thing ?
That was much better :)
"If they don't want to play by the rules for the (whatever) they are free to switch to a (whatever)."
How about you grow up ?
Just because something can be done in theory, doesnâ(TM)t mean that its practical, or desirable.
Instead of making ambit(?) claims (lol, am i doing it now) how about describing the reasoning why the rules are important, and the prof's and cons of changing whatever.
Without reason all you have is noise.
Hindsight is 20/20, and you repeated yourself. Nobody ever thinks these are good except the willing participants and the delusional.
The grandparent stated that "religion discourages unorganized violence", my point was that religions do a lot of organized violence (such as Holly Wars) which counters the reduction of unorgansed violence religous people do.
Actually, i can see how my post was confusing, i used gay bashing and genital mutilation as examples of unorganized violence done by religious people, but actually it is still pretty organized. Someone has to make and put up those "God Hates Fags" posters. And those genitals have to me mutilated in a God pleasing way, im sure it takes a lot of skill, they probably have courses in it.
And yes im sure most religious people are delusional.
2. Revival in religion. Yea I know this is Slashdot and a lot of the readers here are Atheists or against religion in one form or an other, but there has been a resurgence in religious people. Which teaches at least to stop people from doing unorganized violence.
Yea, the organized violence isnt too bad, its the unorganized stuff thats BAD. Oh man, especially when you see an unorganized person doing unorganized violence, with their scruffy appearance, bringing the wrong weapons, its just soo unprofessional, why do they even bother ...
GOOD Violence: Crusades, Holly wars; /sarcasm
BAD Violence: Gay bashing, Genital mutilation (unless its properly organized);
So can i please get the CEO of Yuxing extradited from China (they sign Gerno convention) for violating the GPL upto 100 million times ?
Oh wait, extradition is only a tool governments use to assist in giving corporations power over individuals...
nm
"Because you know that Iceland will vote to be as brutally hard-line about security as it feels that it needs to to protect its one real cash cow."
Did you know that CCP doesnt run Iceland, they are like a democracy and stuff. They stood up for press freedom during Wikileaks hour of need.
Actually the Internet in Iceland is quite popular, lots of firsts. ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Icelandrel=url2html-17702http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Iceland>
Do you really think they are going to become all authoritarian and change their country because of one DDOS attack ?
You been in the server room to long...
It was a good speech from "Good Will Hunting".
Did you type it out yourself, or just cut and paste ?
"Right to life"
A right doesnt have to exercised or claimed in order to be valid.
I have free speech rights, that doesnt mean i have to go around making a noise... I can choose to be quiet and still have the right to speak freely.
Giving a person the right to die doesnâ(TM)t take away their right to life.
Every government limits freedom, its inherent to its role.
Every government limits the freedom of others. While trying to maximize its own.