- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 123,839
- Reaction score
- 28,053
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You should have been born a honey bee. Everybody has a job and the whole thing is productive.
Yes, I am critical of the US, because of their government. So what? I am also critical of Europe, because we are heading the same way. I am critical of the west in general, because we are doing things in such a wrong way at the moment. Do you think that is wrong?
I also think our civilisation is pathetic, because I try to look objectively at it. If you think its not pathetic, then you are not really looking. Personally, I think we are far better than this and I think we are so pathetic because we are being made so pathetic by our monsterously corrupt and deeply flawed system of governance.
Ps. I'd be damned if I want to give away my inner child, I'd be damned if I gave up hope and I'd be stupid if I didn't believe in a better world.
Problem with that laptop example is, hardware improves over time as well, and is a key (perhaps THE key) part of improved computer performance. So unless this fictional laptop also somehow is able to have it's hardware updated, I don't see that working.*lots of text*
Milliard is actually also used by other languages to replace billion.I just said seven thousand million because I felt like it. I could have said 7 billion if I wanted.
You are right about the Germanic languages. They say "billion" for English "trillion" actually. They say "milliard" for billion, which is unique to those languages. "Mille" is one thousand, implying that "milliard" probably comes from "thousand-million".
Yeah, we kind of are born like that. Sure, some of it is societal, but our animal hindbrain certainly doesn't care about people on the other side of the planet. Not everything we do is learned from society and culture. Our instincts don't rule us, and we can override them if we want to, but they certainly shape our behavior. And sure, there are plenty of people who care about the wider world (or say they do at least), but if you made them chose between something close to them and the wider world, you know which they'd chose as well as I do. People are perfectly willing to help out others and care about the wider world around them, but mostly only when it doesn't mean they have to sacrifice anything important.
I tried to read that, but I lost interest as soon as you pointed out that you hadn't really paid attention to what I posted. Not because of what or how you wrote it, but because I don't believe in reading and responding to what someone else wrote when they won't do me the common courtesy of doing the same.
Exactly what I pointed out earlier. You're willing to help out others as long as it means you don't have to sacrifice anything you want. You could give up more than you have and still meet the bare necessities. As I pointed out, you don't really need a computer or internet service (which you referred to as 'junk we don't need'), but you haven't given them up so you can help others more. I'm sure you have other luxuries you could give up to help others as well, but you don't.
You're just a hypocrite asking others to do something you aren't willing to do yourself.
Anti-USA bashing again... nothing ever changes.
Problem with that laptop example is, hardware improves over time as well, and is a key (perhaps THE key) part of improved computer performance. So unless this fictional laptop also somehow is able to have it's hardware updated, I don't see that working.
Especially since the core components of computers need updating as well, and once you do the core, you need the peripherals as well, so everything works well together.
Even if you wanted to have a computer that could be upgraded for 10 years, it wouldn't work unless it was many times more expensive, I think.
I just happen to know very well what I am talking about when it comes to laptops and operating systems, programming and so fourth. Its easy to write bad an inefficient code, if your hardware platform do not challenge you to write better code. Which is why our utilisation of the hardware through the operating system and software, today is extremely poor.
The next 10 years, if we kept the same hardware and instead optimised every bit of the operating system and all the software, we would end up with a zero sum game vs only upgrading the hardware.
Until Windows 8, and somewhat starting to change with Windows 7. New hardware was only needed because the software just turned bigger and bigger and more inefficient. It was the operating system which slowed down the computers, not the hardware. And in many cases, Windows casued damaged to the CPU unit, the CPU fan and areas around, causing deterioration of existing hardware, due to bad implementation of hardware controlling features in the operating system..
So yes, with the two models, we would have better hardware in one model, and better software in the other. The difference in speed and so fourth would be nothing. While the difference in GDP would be that it would be lower. While the difference on the garbage dumps would be significantly less garbage and the effect on peoples private economy would be less waste of money, that would then be spent elsewhere.
The key of a laptop is NOT the hardware. The hardware is important. But it is the operating system that implements the hardware and the features and enables software to be developed.
Most of the time you have to change the whole thing. The design itself is so bad that you usually cannot just upgrade or change one component. And the designs and standards are getting worse and worse in this regard.
Software is the key to unleash the power of the hardware. And if you have inefficient and badly designed software of new hardware or fanstastically designed and efficient software on old hardware, the result should be just about the same in regard to use.
Do you agree with the statement (above)?
What a ridiculous world, full of ridiculous countries, and their naive peoples.
Every single person on this planet is ready to embrace a world society that makes sense. A society where we all get along and cooperate, a society where no one starves, where no one suffers. Everyone is ready to live in and contribute to a society where people do not live under horrific conditions. Everyone is ready to embrace a society where we all cooperate for a better world. Everyone is ready to embrace a society which is well organised and stable with a model that doesn't look like its made by monkeys. Everyone is ready for a society without all the lies, the deceit, manipulation and corruption. Everyone is ready to embrace a free society rather than be jailed and restricted by their governments. Everyone is ready to be free and open their mind instead of being narrow minded and controlled. Everyone is ready to embrace a society where everyone else is good and kind. Everyone is ready to live on a clean and wonderful planet. Everyone is ready to embrace useful change. Everyone wants quality. Everyone is ready for a fair economic system that make sense. Everyone wants everyone else to smile. Everyone wants a world of joy. Everyone wants to be safe. Everyone wants to experience fantastic and great things. Everyone wants to breathe clean air, everyone wants to drink pure water, everyone wants to eat delicious food. We all want to be happy. Everyone wants to live on a planet where everyone else is happy. Everyone wants a planet where everyone have all these things. Everyone wants to have a just society.
I just happen to know very well what I am talking about when it comes to laptops and operating systems, programming and so fourth. Its easy to write bad an inefficient code, if your hardware platform do not challenge you to write better code. Which is why our utilisation of the hardware through the operating system and software, today is extremely poor.
The next 10 years, if we kept the same hardware and instead optimised every bit of the operating system and all the software, we would end up with a zero sum game vs only upgrading the hardware.
Until Windows 8, and somewhat starting to change with Windows 7. New hardware was only needed because the software just turned bigger and bigger and more inefficient. It was the operating system which slowed down the computers, not the hardware. And in many cases, Windows casued damaged to the CPU unit, the CPU fan and areas around, causing deterioration of existing hardware, due to bad implementation of hardware controlling features in the operating system..
So yes, with the two models, we would have better hardware in one model, and better software in the other. The difference in speed and so fourth would be nothing. While the difference in GDP would be that it would be lower. While the difference on the garbage dumps would be significantly less garbage and the effect on peoples private economy would be less waste of money, that would then be spent elsewhere.
The key of a laptop is NOT the hardware. The hardware is important. But it is the operating system that implements the hardware and the features and enables software to be developed.
Most of the time you have to change the whole thing. The design itself is so bad that you usually cannot just upgrade or change one component. And the designs and standards are getting worse and worse in this regard.
Software is the key to unleash the power of the hardware. And if you have inefficient and badly designed software of new hardware or fanstastically designed and efficient software on old hardware, the result should be just about the same in regard to use.
So, now, we've gone from building a better society to building a better computer. The latter has improved enormously since the Apple //e of the 1980s, but the former has not.
Perhaps building a better computer is easier.
You are hardly the first person who thinks that human behavior and human society can be engineered to an ideal, and that you're smart enough to do it.
Millions of bones lie down that muddy path. Fortunately, no one else will ever take you seriously enough for you to get to try.
Its not about engineering society, in this example its about freeing society to enable it to be able to employ the best methods, rather than simply the most profitable ones. Profit as a goal is a complete fallacy.
Its profitable to produce things that needs to be echanged all the time. Its not profitable to build products of quality that lasts. There is something which is obviously wrong with a model that works like that.
Its profitable to empty the resources of our planet. Its profitable to cut down all our trees and vegetation. Its profitable to lay land bare to put up ugly industrial complexes that spew out poison into the air and contaminate the ground and water.
Its not about the computer at all. Its about GDP. The computer is just one example.
While building less computers of higher quality that last longer and produce less trash is of obvious benefit to society, the result on GDP would be a lower GDP.
I had higher thoughts about you than letting yourself be fed by trolls and unpleasant people do yourself act in unpleasant ways. Thats too bad. Any respect I had for you and your opinion is now quickly vanishing.
You are hardly the first person who thinks that human behavior and human society can be engineered to an ideal, and that you're smart enough to do it.
Millions of bones lie down that muddy path. Fortunately, no one else will ever take you seriously enough for you to get to try.
But:Its not about engineering society, in this example its about freeing society to enable it to be able to employ the best methods, rather than simply the most profitable ones. Profit as a goal is a complete fallacy.
Its profitable to produce things that needs to be echanged all the time. Its not profitable to build products of quality that lasts. There is something which is obviously wrong with a model that works like that.
Its profitable to empty the resources of our planet. Its profitable to cut down all our trees and vegetation. Its profitable to lay land bare to put up ugly industrial complexes that spew out poison into the air and contaminate the ground and water.
Are you even aware that pretty much all of your social engineering rhetoric perfectly echoes all of the socialist/communist/fascist dogmas of the 20th century, in concept and in tone?
As I said, millions of bones.
I see.
so, would you have bought a high quality Apple //e back in 1980, one designed to last for the next 33 years?
How about a rotary dial phone from back in the '60s, now that was a piece of equipment made to last.
You have no idea what I am talking about then. Just return the the OP and read it again!
Its not about me, its about everyones will. I simply say, the peoples will should be the future, not some insane monsters in Washington DC, Paris, Cairo, Bangkok or anywhere else. You my friend seem to be completely against a democracy of the people, for the people and by the people. What you want is for the few and awful to rule the many, in a tyrranical system full of traps, faults, manipulation, deception and whatever to force people to accept the system and belief whatever the system tells them.
Damn I couldn't have said this better. Too bad I am on my crappy phone otherwise I'd hit that like button. I hope Max can take a good read at this.
But:
Humans = society.
Thus, fail.
Every one of those socialist/communist/fascist dogmas claimed to have of the "will of the people" behind it, and be for their benefit against sinister, corrupt forces. You're making my case for me.
Well, you are the one who wants to have a single leader.
I am the one who wants to have no leader at all. Be a dictator elected or not is completely irrelevant, he is still a dictator.
I am the one who do not want a political class, you want a political class to decide everything, and leave no influence to the people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?