The anarchism FAQ was written by people who believe this would work. Of course their "what would an anarchist society look like" doesn't say, "Oh, hey, yeah, there's a SLIGHT risk that we're very wrong about human nature."
But I think that if you believe, without reservation, that people are completely capable of working without hierarchies, I think you need to slow down. I'm not saying hierarchies are necessary. I'm saying that anarchism contains a lot of risks, as I see it, and I'm not willing to implement it to see if I'm right or wrong.
I don't know. The SB16 is an awful, awful, awful sound device, in my experience. I have one, and, while it was ok with the cheap computer speakers I used to have, when I plugged it into my stereo, I noticed how badly lacking it is. Perhaps three awfuls weren't necessary, but it's hardly a quality component of a home stereo.
Sadly, I've never been able to argue with anarchists. They've got a compelling vision of the way things should be. However, it's quite possible that things like ESR are the only valid applications of this sort of social model. It's very tough to say whether or not it would work in real life.
And while anarchism, as it's presented by its proponents, sounds very attractive, what it comes down to is that trying it has this huge risk, since it may very well not work. I'm not dissatisfied enough with the current system to try and find out.
I suppose I should clarify that, for the most part, I think of socialism in the Marxian, revolutionary sense. European socialism has moved well beyond Marx, and I find it hard to call it socialism in the same way. It's a weird sort of capitalist type system mixed with a large amount of state intervention. But it's hardly socialism in the historical sense of the word.
Not that I'm complaining, since, if the Europeans did have real socialist governments, they would have long since launched into another dark age.
Now let's hope they don't ruin the industry by splitting Microsoft up... after all, if it wasn't for them PC's would probably be pretty much non-existant.
So what? Standard Oil was largely responsible for the advancement of the oil industry when it was broken up. Same with AT&T for the telephone industry. It's completely possible for a company to give an industry its start, and then use the position it gains from that to dominate that industry.
Yes, MS helped create the PC industry. That doesn't mean that splitting them up now would ruin said industry. I believe what the court has found, to this point, is that they've been using illegal practices which HURT said industry.
That sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to the problem to me.
I could point out that every purely socialist system ever tried has failed miserably, and cost tens of millions of people their lives. The Nazis, who were only very, very, very, very tangentially connected with socialism (a point which you have glossed over in your previous posts) did, in fact, only succeed in gaining power through a confluence of economic factors and an ability to whip the populace of Germany into a frenzied mass of extreme racists. Russia had its purges, killing, what, like 20 million of its own citizens? And millions more, I believe, starved, in the name of creating a worker's paradise.
Hmm... I'm trying to think if I'm missing any obvious ones. China isn't really even close to socialism anymore. In the words of Leon Lederman, it's a gerontocracy(re: government of old people). There are like six very old people who control this country for their own personal betterment, not the betterment of its proletariat. Cuba may be the world's best example of a communist/socialist state, actually, believe it or not. And even there, there are obvious problems. I see no evidence to suggest that life in any of these countries, at any point, is better than the life of the average American today. Socialism was supposed to solve the dehumanization inherent to modern society. But Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and the rest got it wrong.
I suspect that you're going to say that none of these states was purely socialist, but so what? America isn't purely capitalist either. If you're going to defend the USSR by saying that it wasn't a real socialist state, I'm going to defend the US by saying we're not a real capitalist state. No doubt, if we were, the DMCA would not exist. (and indeed, it might not, as it IS government intervention in the marketplace)
I don't know what the answer to the DMCA is, but it's almost certainly not a socialist revolution. Were the US to have a revolution, it would be about six months before we'd have our own Hitler/Stalin/Mao who'd come to power. All three of those men, while doing great things in terms of increasing the power of their countries, did horrible things on a human scale.
And that brings me to my other point. Your user name. I want to let it go, but I can't. Adolf Hitler was hardly a visionary. And he did do some great things, I guess. He managed to resurrect Germany from the defeated shell it was after the first World War into the hellish war machine that it became. In terms of an economic, industrial and military feat, this is impressive.
But, so what? Imagine, for a second, that Germany had won the war. A thousands-year-old people would be extinct. History, as a field, would only exist to serve the Reich. (because you're crazy if you think Hitler would have stopped at controlling continental Europe) Literature, art, music, all would be under extreme censorship. I could go on.
My point is that yes, Hitler did do some good things. But that fact is outweighed by the awful things he did. There is no excusing that, and hearing him called a visionary is enough to make me ill. I pray that you're just poorly informed. Because, frankly, I don't know what to say if you know all of the facts and you still believe what you say.
Yes, every story does have two sides. But that doesn't mean that one of those sides isn't right. Unless you're a complete moral relativist, right is really easy to determine in this case.
I know most of this note is off topic, and I expect to be moderated down accordingly. But some things shouldn't be allowed to go unanswered.
No, I really don't think you want to be around for that. In fact, I'd recommend getting out of the state if that's likely to happen in Rochester, just to be on the safe side.
Thankfully, the British have our interests at heart. By using their agents at British Telecom, they'll give all sorts of privacy to Americans. Once they enforce their patent on the hyperlink, and kill the web, the average American won't have to worry about online privacy anymore! Thanks, Brits!
Some annoyed European with moderator status is no doubt going to moderate me down for being a troll.
Hmmm... Well, in this case, I don't think we need a revolution. That's not the problem here. The problem is a British company with the most inane patent I've ever heard of. In theory, we've been free from Britain for what, 223 years? (224 in a couple of weeks)
Perhaps if we dropped a hundred megaton bomb on London, British Telecom would back off, no?
My, my, that's cutthroat. Occasionally, people share ideas because they just want to see something happen, not because they have any monetary interest in it happening.
I seem to recall the packard bell I used to have had the same sort of deal. It had a system disk that came with it, and it wouldn't install Windows onto a system with a different BIOS, which caused some problems when I built my new computer.
Fortunately, the Windows 98 Upgrade CD still recognizes it as a valid Win95 CD, and doesn't give a damn about what BIOS I'm using.:)
Simply put, the palm, although it has a lot of useful features, is often a toy for people with money to burn. I mean, honestly, if I had the money, I'd get a Palm device just to screw with. In addition to being useful, they're fun little buggers.
There's plenty of people now. There are even arguments why cannibalism would be a good thing. That, plus the fact that it's illegal, should make it quite vogue.
And I don't know why you're saying incest isn't very fun. I'm assuming that it wouldn't happen at all if that was the case. Someone has to be enjoying it. And in this age of safe sex and legal abortion, it causes fewer and less obvious problems. Man. What a great way to flaunt authority!
Anyway, my point is that I don't see pirating music and movies as being popular because it's anti-establishment. It's popular because people want to listen to/watch music and movies for free.
The Romans tried to stop christianity. Christianity became popular. Drugs were made illegal in this country. Drugs became popular. Rock music was chastized by the establishment as being "satanic". Rock becomes popular. Anyone starting to see a pattern here?
What else is illegal? Suicide is. The rates are rising, but I don't know if it is "popular" by any means. Bank robbery is illegal. I just got back from robbing one myself, actually. I think that Christianity, rock music and drugs all have other draws than just being forbidden.
Now, music becomes illegal to download. Downloading music becomes popular.
Yes! Down with the establishment! I'll download music I hate! That'll show them!
Wait, no, I download music, when I do, because I like the music. The legality of it has nothing to do with it, except that it makes me LESS likely. I believe it's a deterrent. I certainly don't think it increases the chances of my downloading.
So Microsoft goes out and builds this standard. Then they say it's impossible. Then, to top it off, they make it illegal to crack it. Who shall be the first to taste the forbidden apple? Good idea! Me me me! I want to taste it!
Wait, no I don't, I don't care.
And what's with criticizing MS for developing the standard? Believe it or not (hold on to your seat here...) they're a SOFTWARE company. They make software. It's how they put food on their tables. If they didn't come up with software, they'd go out of business. (it would take a long time, but that would be the upshot) And what are they supposed to do? "Oh, here's our new encryption software... Um, it's not terribly secure." No. Of course they have to promote it as being secure.
Neither do supposed felonies in your past. I'm certain that any intelligent person isn't going to sue the company they're trying to get hired for, if the company is sensible enough to hold the position until a second check can be run.
And if they don't... cry havoc and let slip the lawyers of war!
Oh, please. You know what? Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, every non-intelligent life form out there can go f**k itself, if it's getting in the way of my comfort. That may be harsh, but that's more or less how it works.
I don't know that this would work. From what I read in the release, it doesn't sound like this provides any more POWERFUL thrust. What it allows for is continuous acceleration. So, this might not do any good in setting landspeed records (unless you have several weeks to accelerate, first).
Though I wish this weren't the case, because "plasma powered landspeeder" is kind of neat-sounding.
This is good to hear. Cutting travel times to Mars in half is a big deal, actually. I mean, the shorter travel times are, the more feasible it is to explore other parts of the solar system. I'm not even looking at the prospect of colonization here, but I would very much like to see us mining the asteroid belt and stuff like that. I don't think it would be terribly cheap to mine the asteroids and ship ore back to Earth, but at the same time, when we use up our resources here, it would be nice to have the capability to go find more elsewhere in the system.
Yeah, I was kind of wondering about that, myself. How do you define an Easter Egg? I mean, for a second, I was thinking that, say, the wooden cup hidden in one of the backgrounds in The Secret of Monkey Island was an Easter Egg. (you know the one -- you look at it and it says, "This is the cup of a carpenter.") But upon further reflection, that's really more of a joke. Same with the move that makes the guy's pants fall down, or Xyzzy. What exactly qualifies as an Easter Egg?
That's one of those great questions like, "Am I pretty much just stealing from my employer when I'm pontificating about these things on the clock?"
Slashdot Mirror
But I think that if you believe, without reservation, that people are completely capable of working without hierarchies, I think you need to slow down. I'm not saying hierarchies are necessary. I'm saying that anarchism contains a lot of risks, as I see it, and I'm not willing to implement it to see if I'm right or wrong.
I don't know. The SB16 is an awful, awful, awful sound device, in my experience. I have one, and, while it was ok with the cheap computer speakers I used to have, when I plugged it into my stereo, I noticed how badly lacking it is. Perhaps three awfuls weren't necessary, but it's hardly a quality component of a home stereo.
Ok, you do that. But if it brings about the collapse of society, and increased poverty and famine, understand that I'm coming after you with a gun.
Not you personally, but you know what I mean.
And while anarchism, as it's presented by its proponents, sounds very attractive, what it comes down to is that trying it has this huge risk, since it may very well not work. I'm not dissatisfied enough with the current system to try and find out.
Not that I'm complaining, since, if the Europeans did have real socialist governments, they would have long since launched into another dark age.
So what? Standard Oil was largely responsible for the advancement of the oil industry when it was broken up. Same with AT&T for the telephone industry. It's completely possible for a company to give an industry its start, and then use the position it gains from that to dominate that industry.
Yes, MS helped create the PC industry. That doesn't mean that splitting them up now would ruin said industry. I believe what the court has found, to this point, is that they've been using illegal practices which HURT said industry.
I could point out that every purely socialist system ever tried has failed miserably, and cost tens of millions of people their lives. The Nazis, who were only very, very, very, very tangentially connected with socialism (a point which you have glossed over in your previous posts) did, in fact, only succeed in gaining power through a confluence of economic factors and an ability to whip the populace of Germany into a frenzied mass of extreme racists. Russia had its purges, killing, what, like 20 million of its own citizens? And millions more, I believe, starved, in the name of creating a worker's paradise.
Hmm... I'm trying to think if I'm missing any obvious ones. China isn't really even close to socialism anymore. In the words of Leon Lederman, it's a gerontocracy(re: government of old people). There are like six very old people who control this country for their own personal betterment, not the betterment of its proletariat. Cuba may be the world's best example of a communist/socialist state, actually, believe it or not. And even there, there are obvious problems. I see no evidence to suggest that life in any of these countries, at any point, is better than the life of the average American today. Socialism was supposed to solve the dehumanization inherent to modern society. But Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and the rest got it wrong.
I suspect that you're going to say that none of these states was purely socialist, but so what? America isn't purely capitalist either. If you're going to defend the USSR by saying that it wasn't a real socialist state, I'm going to defend the US by saying we're not a real capitalist state. No doubt, if we were, the DMCA would not exist. (and indeed, it might not, as it IS government intervention in the marketplace)
I don't know what the answer to the DMCA is, but it's almost certainly not a socialist revolution. Were the US to have a revolution, it would be about six months before we'd have our own Hitler/Stalin/Mao who'd come to power. All three of those men, while doing great things in terms of increasing the power of their countries, did horrible things on a human scale.
And that brings me to my other point. Your user name. I want to let it go, but I can't. Adolf Hitler was hardly a visionary. And he did do some great things, I guess. He managed to resurrect Germany from the defeated shell it was after the first World War into the hellish war machine that it became. In terms of an economic, industrial and military feat, this is impressive.
But, so what? Imagine, for a second, that Germany had won the war. A thousands-year-old people would be extinct. History, as a field, would only exist to serve the Reich. (because you're crazy if you think Hitler would have stopped at controlling continental Europe) Literature, art, music, all would be under extreme censorship. I could go on.
My point is that yes, Hitler did do some good things. But that fact is outweighed by the awful things he did. There is no excusing that, and hearing him called a visionary is enough to make me ill. I pray that you're just poorly informed. Because, frankly, I don't know what to say if you know all of the facts and you still believe what you say.
Yes, every story does have two sides. But that doesn't mean that one of those sides isn't right. Unless you're a complete moral relativist, right is really easy to determine in this case.
I know most of this note is off topic, and I expect to be moderated down accordingly. But some things shouldn't be allowed to go unanswered.
No, I really don't think you want to be around for that. In fact, I'd recommend getting out of the state if that's likely to happen in Rochester, just to be on the safe side.
Some annoyed European with moderator status is no doubt going to moderate me down for being a troll.
...but geez, that icon is scary. I was ok until I saw the eyes move. I actually jumped. Does it have to be animated?
Oh. Whew. Thank God I can't read. :)
Hey! I've been to a WWF event!
Perhaps if we dropped a hundred megaton bomb on London, British Telecom would back off, no?
My, my, that's cutthroat. Occasionally, people share ideas because they just want to see something happen, not because they have any monetary interest in it happening.
Fortunately, the Windows 98 Upgrade CD still recognizes it as a valid Win95 CD, and doesn't give a damn about what BIOS I'm using. :)
Simply put, the palm, although it has a lot of useful features, is often a toy for people with money to burn. I mean, honestly, if I had the money, I'd get a Palm device just to screw with. In addition to being useful, they're fun little buggers.
And I don't know why you're saying incest isn't very fun. I'm assuming that it wouldn't happen at all if that was the case. Someone has to be enjoying it. And in this age of safe sex and legal abortion, it causes fewer and less obvious problems. Man. What a great way to flaunt authority!
Anyway, my point is that I don't see pirating music and movies as being popular because it's anti-establishment. It's popular because people want to listen to/watch music and movies for free.
What else is illegal? Suicide is. The rates are rising, but I don't know if it is "popular" by any means. Bank robbery is illegal. I just got back from robbing one myself, actually. I think that Christianity, rock music and drugs all have other draws than just being forbidden.
Now, music becomes illegal to download. Downloading music becomes popular.
Yes! Down with the establishment! I'll download music I hate! That'll show them!
Wait, no, I download music, when I do, because I like the music. The legality of it has nothing to do with it, except that it makes me LESS likely. I believe it's a deterrent. I certainly don't think it increases the chances of my downloading.
So Microsoft goes out and builds this standard. Then they say it's impossible. Then, to top it off, they make it illegal to crack it. Who shall be the first to taste the forbidden apple? Good idea! Me me me! I want to taste it!
Wait, no I don't, I don't care.
And what's with criticizing MS for developing the standard? Believe it or not (hold on to your seat here...) they're a SOFTWARE company. They make software. It's how they put food on their tables. If they didn't come up with software, they'd go out of business. (it would take a long time, but that would be the upshot) And what are they supposed to do? "Oh, here's our new encryption software... Um, it's not terribly secure." No. Of course they have to promote it as being secure.
Honestly.
Well, technically, you're the grammar nazi. But I maintain that proper nouns are supposed to be capitalized.
And if they don't... cry havoc and let slip the lawyers of war!
Oh, please. You know what? Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, every non-intelligent life form out there can go f**k itself, if it's getting in the way of my comfort. That may be harsh, but that's more or less how it works.
Though I wish this weren't the case, because "plasma powered landspeeder" is kind of neat-sounding.
This is good to hear. Cutting travel times to Mars in half is a big deal, actually. I mean, the shorter travel times are, the more feasible it is to explore other parts of the solar system. I'm not even looking at the prospect of colonization here, but I would very much like to see us mining the asteroid belt and stuff like that. I don't think it would be terribly cheap to mine the asteroids and ship ore back to Earth, but at the same time, when we use up our resources here, it would be nice to have the capability to go find more elsewhere in the system.
Just for the record, I know what it's referring to. I'm just questioning how an Easter Egg is defined.
That's one of those great questions like, "Am I pretty much just stealing from my employer when I'm pontificating about these things on the clock?"