With all the effort to cram Linux into the tiniest processors, I'm surprised someone hasn't etched the latest Linux source onto the head of a pin like they did with the Encylopedia Brittanica a few years back. How cool would that be!
Imagine a beowulf cluster of those pins! Sorry I couldn't resist.
I think you meant to reply to me.. I'm not especially into happy fuzzy stores. I don't like depressing stories without some reasons shown. I have an open mind, I'm going to watch the rest and see if it gets better.
If I billed myself at $20 an hour trying to get a game like Quake, Alpha Centauri or Terminus to work on Linux I'd probably have enough money to buy a Windows machine. I don't really use Linux that much, but I like to think that one day it will be easy enough to play games on Linux.
Isn't it possible to keep your linux source secure, and only allow a few (or one) trusted employees with it, making it effectivly as closed source as NT?
I like Anime, but I have to hunt for the good titles. It's just like American television, the majority of it sucks. If by good, you mean a little action, when then maybe a lot of it is 'good', but I think most of the stories are non existant and don't make sense. How many Anime stories are consistent throughout the film? Even Princess Mononoke had some big holes in the plot and reasons for character motivation. One of my favorite series, Evangelion doesn't make all that much sense sometimes. I find most of non humorous anime over-dramatic.
Sometimes I think they think being over-dramatic makes up for having a plot that makes sense or having to explain what's going on. I recently got some Lain DVDs. I watched the first Episode and wasn't too impressed. It seemed very formulaic; Lain has parents who don't pay attention to her, but we really don't know why. They're just some sterotypical 'apathetic parents'. It's all very one-dimentional. Lain is a sad sad girl.. why? Who knows. Overall it seemed like the characters are going through the motions of some dramatic plot, but there isn't anything there. I didn't find much originality in the first episode either. Well, I will watch the other episodes soon, I hope they're better than the first.
I'm starting to think the tech-geek culture just likes Anime because it's different and not as popular (until recently), not because the stories are really good or the action is very original. It's cool to say you like Anime, I guess it means you're 'hip' or something. Ask someone what they like about it sometime, I rarely get a good answer. I'm actually going to an Anime convention soon. A friend of mine brought me along with him to one a few years ago, and that's where I got exposed to some.. he lead me in the right direction to find good stuff. He's a long time Anime fan, and we went through the schedule, and there were an awful lot of things he said sucked. I'm going to this next one to hopefully find more good stuff.
Come to think of it, there's a lot of American animation that I really like. Simpsons, Futurama, Gargoyles, The Transformers, G.I. Joe, Dungeons and Dragons. Even the Smurfs had some interesting episodes. Maybe it is just a cultural thing and I don't get it.. hmm I don't think so, it's more probable that most Anime really does suck, like every other genre.
Of course we still haven't solved the race issue in the US. Last I checked the NAACP was complaining about Jews. (I know, "..but Judaism is a religion, not a race" -- YOU explain it to the NAACP!)
Many Jews consider being Jewish their Religion AND their race. I'm not saying they're right, but a good number of Jews that I've asked what their background was, all they've said at first was 'Jewish'.
Innovative doesn't only mean you've come up with a three letter acronym for some new gaming system, FPS, RTS, etc. Real Time Strategy wasn't very innovative. There are 20 year old board games which are nearly Real Time Strategy. First Person Shooter... well that one was pretty much obvious. The innovation was in the code that allowed people to realize this obvious game system on a computer screen. Starcraft was innovative because they made the first RTS involving 3 balanced forces. I was very impressed when I first saw this, I think that is something very hard to do well. I also hear they may be adding one or two more forces to Starcraft II, and I'm already doubtful that it will be well balanced.
Thanks for the explaination, it made a lot of sense. The only part I didn't agree with was the last:
When you hear gun control advocates ranting about protecting our children, what you are actually hearing are outlaws and hypocrites, people who who would transgress the Law, yet insist on their rights under that same Law. By rights, this is anathema, which explains the justifiable outrage amongst the "gun nuts".
Under our (USA) Law, the Law can be changed. Being an advocate for changing the law shouldn't mean you're an outlaw, and it doesn't in this country. If I go to someone's house and steal their guns and throw them in the river, then I'm an outlaw. If I express my opinion and use legal means to change law in favor of gun restriction, how would that make me an outlaw? (Note, I'm not saying I believe in gun control or not.) Does Libertarianism assume once you are under some law, it cannot be changed? I can't believe that that's true, Libertarians must recognize that no set of laws is perfect, and changes may be necessary from time to time. This is concerning because from what you posted, it sounds like there is nothing wrong with enslaving or killing people who advocate gun control, according to Libertarianism. (most of what I know about Libertarianism is what you just posted, so I'm mostly going by that)
Also, in another post I quoted 2 statements from Ayn Rand books. Please explain to me how that is not denouncing charity.
I've read some of your other comments
Just to be clear - it is the only moral philosophical system...
There are other moral philosophical systems. You may not consider them moral or 'right', just as I consider yours wrong. One of the major problems I have with objectivism is that it assumes correct thinking, as if stating that you're an objectivist means your morals are correct. IT doesn't admit that it's trying to find what is moral. Even the name 'objectivism' is tainted with this line of thought. It's like calling a philosophy 'Truthism'. You are one of the few Objectivists I've seen come close to admitting that Objectivists are seeking morality:
Objectivism is all about identification of right values, and acknowledging and supporting the right values.
What you fail to realize is that this is what most philosophies and even religions are about. All of them are seeking truth, most may be totally irrational and obviously wrong. Saying that you are seeking 'right values, and acknowledging and supporting the right values' doesn't mean you have necessarily succeeded. This is also why I find objectivism inherently arrogant.
..as it provides the moral foundation for the principle that no one may initiate force against another.
Having read some Rand, and some other literature on Objectivism, I have yet to see a solid case made by Objectivists about not using force. I think this is the area where Objectivism will see it's own undoing. Because Objectivism doesn't make a strong case on this important point and because the rest of the philosophy is just arrogant enough to make it compatible with another very brutal philosophy in the future. Something like gene pool cleansing of the human race, I imagine.
According to Objectivism, there is nothing wrong with the following scenario:
An extremely wealthy individual or institution buys all or most of the food supply of the world. Then they refuse to sell any food to anyone else.
I suppose Objectivism would say something like, 'well, those hungry people should have planned ahead' or 'everyone shouldn't have sold their food production business to this one company'. Or maybe not, you tell me what an objectivist would say about this situation.
I believe in not using force, that's where I agree with Objectivism. I don't necessarily belive in charity, but I do believe there are wrong things you can do that don't involve force, such as my example above. Under objectivism, you can't kill a person by force, but you can use your resources to set up conditions where a person can not possibly live. Not using force may be one thing that separates us from Animals, but why can't something that prevents my scenario also be what it means to be human or moral? I admit, I don't know of a rigid set of rules that would prevent my scenario, but I know that it's wrong.
Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit.
Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man -- every man -- is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism -- the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
I got this from theEssentials of Objectivism site, but having reading the first 50 or so pages of The Virtue of Selfishness, I already knew that Objectivism denounces charity.
Have you read any Rand? I've read only part of 2 of her books (Atlas Shrugged & The Virtue of Selfishness), but she makes it quite clear within the first 50 pages of the latter that giving something to someone for nothing in return is wrong. I don't remember anything about giving people something for nothing based on some merit that doesn't benefit you. And if you are giving to them for something in return, then it isn't really charity, is it?
Heh, facts from an allegory. Read The Virtue of Selfishness. Why is it Rand's most famous work, which people point to for facts and a reference for her philosopy, is a work of fiction? Why does she need to contrive some lengthly story to make her point? Why weren't there enough real world examples -- she's known for consistantly denouncing the way the world works now (during her time of course). She had an interesting and perhaps 'good at heart' idea, but ultimatly flaws and incompatible with reality.
Objectivism & Scientology - Coming to a theater near you within the next 50 years.
You work for an internet company.. you must be able to steal about 10 copies of Windows from work without anyone even caring. It's easy to install too, just click next about a dozen times, I've heard they trained a monkey at the Bronx Zoo who can do it, but for legal reasons they could not issue him an MSCE.
Well thought out filters. I'd have few songs left, less than 1% of all my mp3s (1500). I don't know a lot of people that use MP3s.... maybe 7. 2 of them have encoded their own cd library and maybe 40 or so songs off Napster. One guy I know, he downloads a bunch off Napster, but doesn't keep that many of them because of HD space, and doesn't buy many CDs at all. Another guy has 2 zip disks full.. those last two guys probably wouldn't buy the cds if that's the only way they could get the money. The other 3 only listen to ones their friends send them and say hey 'listen to this'. I don't know anyone who collects MP3s en masse and who doesn't own at least the same number in real CDs.
finding how many people have a lot of mp3s left after you apply that filter is tough to estimate, but I wonder what it is.
Your sig is funny. Signal 11 wrote that in response to someone complaining about someone (Me) moderating their post to Troll. I even posted to reverse my moderation. If someone is going to feel all bad about it, fine.
Anyway, I'm not organized (I don't talk to anyone from slashdot regularly or anywhere else (except 2 users who are friends in rl)), and I don't purposly troll anyone, especially not Anonymously. I recently started Meta-moderating, and I haven't found one yet that looks like a bad moderation. Every thread has interesting info it in modded up. It doesn't look like there's much of a problem to me.
You guys are a bit paranoid I think. My karma is a whoping 14, so maybe my point of view is a bit different.. but I don't take slashdot too seriously. I come here to read news and involve myself a teeny bit in the community (mostly through moderation).
Sometimes I don't know what's worse, First Posters, Flamers and Trolls or you high karma guys complaining about moderation done to you. In any case the line between the two of you is thinning.
I'd like to understand how you assume someone who sees wasted effort in SETI is the same sort of person who would destroy a library. Did he mention destroying anything? Did he mention he wants to go to your house and rip your computer out of the wall? He's talking about what he thinks is misguided effort and his alruistic views. Also, I think he's aware of what SETI does. It's not a complicated idea. So it's not ignorance, it's a difference of opinion. But then again, using your own character evaluation methods, you're obviously one of those people who makes that mistake often.
You are the kind of bastard that burned Alexandria's library, fearful and ignorant of the knowledge contained within
This is like saying to you based on your post, "You are the type of person who would kill someone for what they posted on Slashdot."
You know, usually it's Estanislao who has the chip on his shoulder, but gee, I think you got him beat.
By the way, I've run SETI and RC5 programs. So if you didn't get the point, it's your asenine mis-insight into someone's character that I'm attacking.
Slashdot Mirror
Point well made, thanks very much.
With all the effort to cram Linux into the tiniest processors, I'm surprised someone hasn't etched the latest Linux source onto the head of a pin like they did with the Encylopedia Brittanica a few years back. How cool would that be!
Imagine a beowulf cluster of those pins! Sorry I couldn't resist.
Interesting... is this a problem with pacemaker devices and the like?
I think you meant to reply to me.. I'm not especially into happy fuzzy stores. I don't like depressing stories without some reasons shown. I have an open mind, I'm going to watch the rest and see if it gets better.
If I billed myself at $20 an hour trying to get a game like Quake, Alpha Centauri or Terminus to work on Linux I'd probably have enough money to buy a Windows machine. I don't really use Linux that much, but I like to think that one day it will be easy enough to play games on Linux.
Isn't it possible to keep your linux source secure, and only allow a few (or one) trusted employees with it, making it effectivly as closed source as NT?
Hey, I was looking at your posts because you replied to one of mine. Do you reccomend any Anime in particular?
Thanks
Hmm I'm surprised that the Transformers are Japanese.. the episodes were pretty simple and made sense.
I think I've heard about the Smurfs being German.. didn't know that was true.
Thanks for the info.
I like Anime, but I have to hunt for the good titles. It's just like American television, the majority of it sucks. If by good, you mean a little action, when then maybe a lot of it is 'good', but I think most of the stories are non existant and don't make sense. How many Anime stories are consistent throughout the film? Even Princess Mononoke had some big holes in the plot and reasons for character motivation. One of my favorite series, Evangelion doesn't make all that much sense sometimes. I find most of non humorous anime over-dramatic.
Sometimes I think they think being over-dramatic makes up for having a plot that makes sense or having to explain what's going on. I recently got some Lain DVDs. I watched the first Episode and wasn't too impressed. It seemed very formulaic; Lain has parents who don't pay attention to her, but we really don't know why. They're just some sterotypical 'apathetic parents'. It's all very one-dimentional. Lain is a sad sad girl.. why? Who knows. Overall it seemed like the characters are going through the motions of some dramatic plot, but there isn't anything there. I didn't find much originality in the first episode either. Well, I will watch the other episodes soon, I hope they're better than the first.
I'm starting to think the tech-geek culture just likes Anime because it's different and not as popular (until recently), not because the stories are really good or the action is very original. It's cool to say you like Anime, I guess it means you're 'hip' or something. Ask someone what they like about it sometime, I rarely get a good answer. I'm actually going to an Anime convention soon. A friend of mine brought me along with him to one a few years ago, and that's where I got exposed to some.. he lead me in the right direction to find good stuff. He's a long time Anime fan, and we went through the schedule, and there were an awful lot of things he said sucked. I'm going to this next one to hopefully find more good stuff.
Come to think of it, there's a lot of American animation that I really like. Simpsons, Futurama, Gargoyles, The Transformers, G.I. Joe, Dungeons and Dragons. Even the Smurfs had some interesting episodes. Maybe it is just a cultural thing and I don't get it.. hmm I don't think so, it's more probable that most Anime really does suck, like every other genre.
Of course we still haven't solved the race issue in the US. Last I checked the NAACP was complaining about Jews. (I know, "..but Judaism is a religion, not a race" -- YOU explain it to the NAACP!)
Many Jews consider being Jewish their Religion AND their race. I'm not saying they're right, but a good number of Jews that I've asked what their background was, all they've said at first was 'Jewish'.
Right, and that's the gripe, that they got rid of having a story.
Innovative doesn't only mean you've come up with a three letter acronym for some new gaming system, FPS, RTS, etc. Real Time Strategy wasn't very innovative. There are 20 year old board games which are nearly Real Time Strategy. First Person Shooter... well that one was pretty much obvious. The innovation was in the code that allowed people to realize this obvious game system on a computer screen. Starcraft was innovative because they made the first RTS involving 3 balanced forces. I was very impressed when I first saw this, I think that is something very hard to do well. I also hear they may be adding one or two more forces to Starcraft II, and I'm already doubtful that it will be well balanced.
Thanks for the explaination, it made a lot of sense. The only part I didn't agree with was the last: When you hear gun control advocates ranting about protecting our children, what you are actually hearing are outlaws and hypocrites, people who who would transgress the Law, yet insist on their rights under that same Law. By rights, this is anathema, which explains the justifiable outrage amongst the "gun nuts".
Under our (USA) Law, the Law can be changed. Being an advocate for changing the law shouldn't mean you're an outlaw, and it doesn't in this country. If I go to someone's house and steal their guns and throw them in the river, then I'm an outlaw. If I express my opinion and use legal means to change law in favor of gun restriction, how would that make me an outlaw? (Note, I'm not saying I believe in gun control or not.) Does Libertarianism assume once you are under some law, it cannot be changed? I can't believe that that's true, Libertarians must recognize that no set of laws is perfect, and changes may be necessary from time to time. This is concerning because from what you posted, it sounds like there is nothing wrong with enslaving or killing people who advocate gun control, according to Libertarianism. (most of what I know about Libertarianism is what you just posted, so I'm mostly going by that)
Also, in another post I quoted 2 statements from Ayn Rand books. Please explain to me how that is not denouncing charity.
..as it provides the moral foundation for the principle that no one may initiate force against another.
I've read some of your other comments
Just to be clear - it is the only moral philosophical system...
There are other moral philosophical systems. You may not consider them moral or 'right', just as I consider yours wrong. One of the major problems I have with objectivism is that it assumes correct thinking, as if stating that you're an objectivist means your morals are correct. IT doesn't admit that it's trying to find what is moral. Even the name 'objectivism' is tainted with this line of thought. It's like calling a philosophy 'Truthism'. You are one of the few Objectivists I've seen come close to admitting that Objectivists are seeking morality:
Objectivism is all about identification of right values, and acknowledging and supporting the right values.
What you fail to realize is that this is what most philosophies and even religions are about. All of them are seeking truth, most may be totally irrational and obviously wrong. Saying that you are seeking 'right values, and acknowledging and supporting the right values' doesn't mean you have necessarily succeeded. This is also why I find objectivism inherently arrogant.
Having read some Rand, and some other literature on Objectivism, I have yet to see a solid case made by Objectivists about not using force. I think this is the area where Objectivism will see it's own undoing. Because Objectivism doesn't make a strong case on this important point and because the rest of the philosophy is just arrogant enough to make it compatible with another very brutal philosophy in the future. Something like gene pool cleansing of the human race, I imagine.
According to Objectivism, there is nothing wrong with the following scenario:
An extremely wealthy individual or institution buys all or most of the food supply of the world. Then they refuse to sell any food to anyone else.
I suppose Objectivism would say something like, 'well, those hungry people should have planned ahead' or 'everyone shouldn't have sold their food production business to this one company'. Or maybe not, you tell me what an objectivist would say about this situation.
I believe in not using force, that's where I agree with Objectivism. I don't necessarily belive in charity, but I do believe there are wrong things you can do that don't involve force, such as my example above. Under objectivism, you can't kill a person by force, but you can use your resources to set up conditions where a person can not possibly live. Not using force may be one thing that separates us from Animals, but why can't something that prevents my scenario also be what it means to be human or moral? I admit, I don't know of a rigid set of rules that would prevent my scenario, but I know that it's wrong.
The comment didn't 'come' from that site. If you have disagreements with my arguement you should have made them, and would like to hear them.
How long until Objectivism and Scientology merge?
Don't worry, they'll be climbing out of your club house and into the scientology club house soon enough.
I don't care what you say, Librarians are still good people in my book.
Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit.
Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man -- every man -- is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism -- the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society. I got this from theEssentials of Objectivism site, but having reading the first 50 or so pages of The Virtue of Selfishness, I already knew that Objectivism denounces charity.
Have you read any Rand? I've read only part of 2 of her books (Atlas Shrugged & The Virtue of Selfishness), but she makes it quite clear within the first 50 pages of the latter that giving something to someone for nothing in return is wrong. I don't remember anything about giving people something for nothing based on some merit that doesn't benefit you. And if you are giving to them for something in return, then it isn't really charity, is it?
Heh, facts from an allegory. Read The Virtue of Selfishness. Why is it Rand's most famous work, which people point to for facts and a reference for her philosopy, is a work of fiction? Why does she need to contrive some lengthly story to make her point? Why weren't there enough real world examples -- she's known for consistantly denouncing the way the world works now (during her time of course). She had an interesting and perhaps 'good at heart' idea, but ultimatly flaws and incompatible with reality.
Objectivism & Scientology - Coming to a theater near you within the next 50 years.
You work for an internet company.. you must be able to steal about 10 copies of Windows from work without anyone even caring. It's easy to install too, just click next about a dozen times, I've heard they trained a monkey at the Bronx Zoo who can do it, but for legal reasons they could not issue him an MSCE.
Well thought out filters. I'd have few songs left, less than 1% of all my mp3s (1500). I don't know a lot of people that use MP3s.... maybe 7. 2 of them have encoded their own cd library and maybe 40 or so songs off Napster. One guy I know, he downloads a bunch off Napster, but doesn't keep that many of them because of HD space, and doesn't buy many CDs at all. Another guy has 2 zip disks full.. those last two guys probably wouldn't buy the cds if that's the only way they could get the money. The other 3 only listen to ones their friends send them and say hey 'listen to this'. I don't know anyone who collects MP3s en masse and who doesn't own at least the same number in real CDs.
finding how many people have a lot of mp3s left after you apply that filter is tough to estimate, but I wonder what it is.
Can't you at least get the ASCII drawing to look right if you're going to waste the space?
Your sig is funny. Signal 11 wrote that in response to someone complaining about someone (Me) moderating their post to Troll. I even posted to reverse my moderation. If someone is going to feel all bad about it, fine.
Anyway, I'm not organized (I don't talk to anyone from slashdot regularly or anywhere else (except 2 users who are friends in rl)), and I don't purposly troll anyone, especially not Anonymously. I recently started Meta-moderating, and I haven't found one yet that looks like a bad moderation. Every thread has interesting info it in modded up. It doesn't look like there's much of a problem to me.
You guys are a bit paranoid I think. My karma is a whoping 14, so maybe my point of view is a bit different.. but I don't take slashdot too seriously. I come here to read news and involve myself a teeny bit in the community (mostly through moderation).
Sometimes I don't know what's worse, First Posters, Flamers and Trolls or you high karma guys complaining about moderation done to you. In any case the line between the two of you is thinning.
I won't bother you again.
I'd like to understand how you assume someone who sees wasted effort in SETI is the same sort of person who would destroy a library. Did he mention destroying anything? Did he mention he wants to go to your house and rip your computer out of the wall? He's talking about what he thinks is misguided effort and his alruistic views. Also, I think he's aware of what SETI does. It's not a complicated idea. So it's not ignorance, it's a difference of opinion. But then again, using your own character evaluation methods, you're obviously one of those people who makes that mistake often.
You are the kind of bastard that burned Alexandria's library, fearful and ignorant of the knowledge contained within
This is like saying to you based on your post, "You are the type of person who would kill someone for what they posted on Slashdot."
You know, usually it's Estanislao who has the chip on his shoulder, but gee, I think you got him beat.
By the way, I've run SETI and RC5 programs. So if you didn't get the point, it's your asenine mis-insight into someone's character that I'm attacking.
Defending Estanislao.. imagine that.