Windows XP
-
@blakeyrat said:
@pearl298 said:
HMM we get out the rulers and drop our pants for the traditional 13 year old boy's ritual ...
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I think that accurately reflects the maturuty level of the comments here.
A whole lot of juvenile name calling and nit picking with no substance whatsoever.
-
@pearl298 said:
@blakeyrat said:
I agree. That comment exactly expresses the general consensus of disdain for you and your moronic inanity. @pearl298 said:@pearl298 said:
I think that accurately reflects the maturuty level of the comments here.HMM we get out the rulers and drop our pants for the traditional 13 year old boy's ritual ...
What the fuck is wrong with you?A whole lot of juvenile name calling and nit picking with no substance whatsoever.
That quote contained neither name-calling nor nit-picking. You are a boring, pathetic troll. Sadly, we've already got that position filled. But in case should SpectateSwamp ever decide to retire, we'll keep your name in the file as a potential replacement.
-
@pearl298 said:
Kinda sorta - strange that THIS website seems to be running Linux/Apache though.
From what I read almost every "hacked" website wuns Win XXX of some sort though.
WTF?
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727
CommunityServer: 3.1.20917.1142Now, you were saying?
And hacked websites... little Bobby Tables is at least as likely to find a way into some half-arsed PHP/MySQL website as some half-arsed ASP(.NET)/MSSQL website. The one website I most recently heard of being hacked was a PHP/Linux (no DB) website (albeit on some half-arsed host still running Apache 1.x)
Sure, Linux is fine for a certain range of problems, and I use it day-to-day as my primary OS (with Windows in a VM for specific software), and I run a select few things in Wine, but it just doesn't run all the things large companies want to run. To suggest otherwise is to expose yourself as either a retarded fanboi or college student (and I have been assured that there is a difference).
-
One of the things I like about this forum is that people don't get religious over an OS or distro; it's a tool, and while you might have a gripe over how a certain aspect works, or why Windows ME is crap or how hard it is to get your app running on different distro's, it's still a tool, and you don't get too worked up over it any more than you would over a hammer or a nice chainsaw.
Flamewars here are reserved for ye old "USA vs the Normal World" debate, or bstorers mom or penises, which is how it should be. Flamewars over hammers vs screwdrivers are just plain boring, even worse so when based on ignorance.
-
I tend to agree with that.
Additionally, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what Operating System you use- unless you take steps to <ensure> it's secure, it's not. Windows' Defaults are more or less aimed at making things work properly (or trying too) from the get go, whereas Linux distro's differ- some try a "batten down the hatches" approach and pretty much make you edit about 50 .config files just to get a browser to work, whereas others (mostly in the "OMG this is the best desktop Linux evar") category) usually go with a windows-like setup where the user is required to make as few choices as possible and settings are defaulted to what works for most people. Of course, a Linux Distro is going to be more secure then windows, but this isn't because Windows is necessarily more bug-ridden, or because they are a closed source product.
Think of an Operating System- or any program, for that matter, as a hose.
Now, the amount of liquid flowing through that hose can b e considered the number of people "looking for holes".
if this was the case, a "windows brand" hose would have a lot higher pressure- and as anybody who has tried to run water at a higher pressure then a hose was designed for- this finds the "weak spots" (vvulnerabilities, bugs). So while Windows based OS's have more pressure, a relatively "stronger" hose (because of the bugs that have been found and fixed because of the higher pressure) and more holes, at hte same time, while the "linux" hose has fewer holes, it's still questionable how many more holes would be found if the number of people (pressure) was higher. I hope that analogy made sense. Basically, more people looking for vulnerabilities translates to more people finding them. It doesn't matter what software product we're talking about. The fact that not as many vulnerabilities are found in Linux distributions and how they are not found as frequently could just be a function of how their are overall fewer people looking for them. But this doesn't matter. (Back to the hose analogy) if you're smart, you can predict exactly where "holes" would appear, and do something to prevent it, like put duct tape on it. Same with an OS- it doesn't matter what OS we're talking about. There <ARE> undiscovered vulnerabilities, and relying on the default config, regardless of OS, is simply asking to have those exploits used on <you> when they are discovered.
Hmm, that paragraph seemed to favour windows... but, my point was really that it doesn't matter how many bugs are found, how often they are found, how quickly they are fixed, or any of that, it has absolutely no bearing on the potential for exploit. If windows had not become the most popular desktop OS and was therefore more a "secondary" selection, then it stands to reason that many of the bugs that have already been found and fixed would not have even been discovered- and that the overall bug/fix count would be less. This of course would have no bearing on the vastly larger number of bugs present in the software, just as Linux having fewer known bugs or a slower rate of discovery doesn't necessarily mean anything in the big picture.
And now I'm repeating myself. Oh well.
pearl298:
Are you the "Dave Dunfield" on the link you posted or were you using that site as an example? Truly, I'm not sure how that really proves your involvement with the mod8 either way. (I only skimmed the page so I might have missed something)
-
@BC_Programmer said:
Additionally, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what Operating System you use- unless you take steps to <ensure> it's secure, it's not. Windows' Defaults are more or less aimed at making things work properly (or trying too) from the get go, whereas Linux distro's differ- some try a "batten down the hatches" approach and pretty much make you edit about 50 .config files just to get a browser to work, whereas others (mostly in the "OMG this is the best desktop Linux evar") category) usually go with a windows-like setup where the user is required to make as few choices as possible and settings are defaulted to what works for most people.
Server versions of Windows are locked-down so much you can't do shit out of the box. Server versions of Linux are configured to the point where you can't really do shit out of the box.
Desktop versions of Windows are not, and desktop Linuxes are not.
This isn't a Windows vs. Linux thing, this is a desktop vs. server thing. Unless you're either using a very very old version of Windows Server (in which case, don't do that), or using Windows desktops as servers (in which case, also don't do that.)
@BC_Programmer said:
Of course, a Linux Distro is going to be more secure then windows, but this isn't because Windows is necessarily more bug-ridden, or because they are a closed source product.
I'm not sure that follows enough to be put behind "of course." Linux has advantages in the server space, simply because it's been around (and been attacked) for longer. That said, IIS has been around long enough now that it's pretty goddamned sharp. Other tools in the Windows Server infrastructure, like Sharepoint for example, are much newer and probably have more holes than (for example) MediaWiki.
Most "Windows" security holes are actually ASP problems, and not necessarily bugs in those languages, but idiot programmers using them wrong. (ASP and ASP.Net have a ton of bad programmers behind them, just like PHP on Linux. The difference is that when a PHP app gets hacked, PHP gets blamed. When a ASP app gets hacked, Windows gets the blame.)
In the desktop space, I think Windows has more effective security in place currently. (Again: assuming you're not running a very very old version.) That said, I've haven't used a Linux distro in a year and change, because they never fucking work on my hardware... maybe it's improved.
-
@pearl298 said:
@blakeyrat said:
@pearl298 said:
HMM we get out the rulers and drop our pants for the traditional 13 year old boy's ritual ...
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I think that accurately reflects the maturuty level of the comments here.
A whole lot of juvenile name calling and nit picking with no substance whatsoever.
Look, you accused me of being a Windows fanboi. I gave my history as a way of proving that particular assertion wrong. Then to started going on about penis-measuring and posted your own history of OS use, but the point you're missing is: nobody ever accused you of being an anything-fanboi, so you were just posting it as penis-measuring. Then you preface this moronity with a sentence about raping underage boys. Or something.
Here, look:
If Linux is so fucking good, and completely free of charge, then why hasn't it displaced any Windows sales in over a decade of seriously trying? That includes on the desktop, but also on the server where Linux had such a huge head-start out of the gate that (all else being equal) Windows Server sales should be in the single digits of marketshare right now. Made especially ironic because Apple's OS X has had absolutely no problem displacing Windows desktop sales in the same amount of time... proving that Microsoft is not some unstoppable juggernaut, but that the Linux community is doing something wrong.
The only open source project that's made a lot of headway in recent years is Firefox. If you could replicate Firefox's performance in, say, Ubuntu, then Ubuntu would have a 30%+ share right now... but that's not happening. Why?
Well, perhaps because Ubuntu gets released with moronic bugs that cause my laptop to blast out a 120 dB square-wave ear-rape at random intervals. Perhaps it's because after a decade of trying, power management still does not fucking work right Perhaps it's because Linux has never been "out in front" of any technological innovation from a rival in all the time I've been aware of it.*
Linux's greatest success is blame-shifting. Like in the above example, where PHP gets the blame for DB insertion errors on Linux, but Windows (not ASP) gets the blame in Windows. Or how Linux can shovel out the old: "well hardware support would be better of OEMs gave us their spec sheets!" Or: "we can't ship working code because of patents in the US!" Undoubtedly true, but where does the buck stop? You have a problem, solve the fucking problem. Microsoft manages to solve it. Apple manages to solve it. Linux just whines and whines and whines.
Sorry this became something of a pearl298-esque rant. I'll go commit seppuku now.
*) This is the point where you claim that Linux "had GPU-accelerated windows first", forgetting that:
1) It didn't, OS X did by any reasonable measure
2) The only half-decent implementation, Compiz, was a buggy piece of shit that everybody ignored until Microsoft announced they were putting the same feature in Vista-- suddenly it becomes priority number 1. (Despite that, it still never shipped on any mainstream distros before Vista did, so see number 1.)Linux users can always claim to be ahead of the pack, because there are so many thousands of skunkworks projects in Linux implementing various ideas. None of these projects develop past pre-Alpha stage, or end up in any distros, until a competitor announces that they're adding the same feature-- then all of a sudden: "that useless buggy skunkworks project was started in 2005, so we had it first! It does't matter that it was unusuable, or that no distros shipped it!"
-
@b_redeker said:
One of the things I like about this forum is that people don't get religious over an OS or distro; it's a tool, and while you might have a gripe over how a certain aspect works, or why Windows ME is crap or how hard it is to get your app running on different distro's, it's still a tool, and you don't get too worked up over it any more than you would over a hammer or a nice chainsaw.
I agree 100% -- maybe more.@b_redeker said:
And the thing is, if he had come in and made cogent points, a lively discussion likely would have taken place. We can't resist a debate here, but we try to do it on factual merits. Instead, he spews shit and turns everyone against him, as he deserves. Have I mentioned that I love you guys (even dhromed (ESPECIALLY dhromed (But ESPECIALLY btk)))?Flamewars here are reserved for ye old "USA vs the Normal World" debate, or bstorers mom or penises, which is how it should be. Flamewars over hammers vs screwdrivers are just plain boring, even worse so when based on ignorance.
-
Nope. My company just did the same. In my defence, we had 5-6 Win 2K boxes, all the others were XP, and .Net 3.5 doesn't work on 2K (and a new app we just got needs it). And no-one would let me do an all-out Win 7 upgrade :-( Still, works for us!! I'd best not mention our core in-house app is actually written in VB6 with no plans to convert that beast to .NET... That would make us look really out-of-date :-)
-
@pearl298 said:
NO viruses/malware (on ANY Linux/Mac OS!) - NONE!
Someone already pointed out rootkits. However, there are Linux/MacOS/Solaris/Other unix viruses. Some of them are even cross-platform (will work on several or even many unix OSes). It's just that there's no money there, no fame, etc. Not only are there 10 times as many Windows machines as all machines running any of the other general purpose OSes combined, but the propagation is hampered by the fact that there's over a 90% chance any randomly chosen machine will be intrinsically immune to the thing. Linux is of particular note here, because there's so much variation between distributions, it's quite possible for most of them to be intrinsically immune to a virus written specifically for one of them. And, if a virus cannot find another system to infect efficiently, it's dead.
That having been said, that's a benefit of Linux right now. If it were to become popular, we would see more Linux viruses. And, as we've seen in the Windows world, software security holes aren't necessarily required - social engineering, sad to say, works just fine.
@pearl298 said:
@bstorer said:
This ain't Slashdot, son. I'm looking forward to the savage beating you're going to get.
I wonder where I could POSSIBLY get the idea that this was a WIndows fanboi hangout?
Some people here are Windows fans. Some of us are Linux fans. Some of us are Mac fans.
What unites us is that we realize that all software sucks.
Some of us want to improve that, some of us just want to laugh at the status quo.
For what it's worth, it actually seems to me that Linux/unix is statistically over-represented here. So's perl. However, that's more due to the tiny market share of those products, and the corresponding fact that, given the low number of regulars here, *any* representation would over-represent them.
(Yes, perl's used behind the scenes at quite a few places. I know this, I *put* it in a few of those places. I'm of the opinion that it's about as good of a language as any, and better than most. But it still has problems, and I'm realistic enough to know that very few people prefer it.)
Btw, as one Linux fan to another, I beseech you: *please* improve your communication skills. You are helping to make all Linux fans look like anti-social misfits. Whenever you approach a topic with the attitude that everyone you're addressing is a moron whose current opinion does not matter, you lose. It doesn't matter if everyone you're addressing *is* a moron. Very few people can keep an open mind about a topic after you've insulted them.
-
@tgape said:
Some people here are Windows fans. Some of us are Linux fans. Some of us are Mac fans.
Well I'm a big fan of being paid money, and if the industry I work in (and have a shitload of experience in) is based on MS products .. then guess what .. thats what I use. I'd love it if I could use my expertise on another platform, but I doubt its going to happen in my lifetime. The closest I have come to a non-MS OS as a part of work was using products running under VMS about 15 years ago.
-
@tgape said:
Whenever you approach a topic with the attitude that everyone you're addressing is a moron whose current opinion does not matter, you lose. It doesn't matter if everyone you're addressing *is* a moron. Very few people can keep an open mind about a topic after you've insulted them.
I would like to add my +9000 to this bit as it is wisdom for all ages, all contexts, and all domains.
-
@tgape said:
For what it's worth, it actually seems to me that Linux/unix is statistically over-represented here. So's perl. However, that's more due to the tiny market share of those products
No, that's because people who know Perl are AWESOME.
-
@b_redeker said:
Must be the language barrier, because you've completely misspelled "awful."@tgape said:
For what it's worth, it actually seems to me that Linux/unix is statistically over-represented here. So's perl. However, that's more due to the tiny market share of those products
No, that's because people who know Perl are AWESOME.
-
@MeesterTurner said:
I'd best not mention our core in-house app is actually written in VB6 with no plans to convert that beast to .NET... That would make us look really out-of-date :-)
Your core in-house app is SSDS, isn't it? ISN'T IT?
-
@blakeyrat said:
1) It's actually Virtual PC, not VMWare. This is good because it is able to fully emulate the x86 CPU if needed to, for example, run 16-bit apps in 64-bit OSes. (Note: I have no idea if it actually supports that, but Virtual PC is one of the few tools that can support it in theory.) It is also capable of running in a virtualization layer, which is probably what Microsoft is actually doing, since emulating x86 on x86 is surprisingly extremely slow.
In terms of features, Virtual PC lags behind both VMWare and VirtualBox (the mentioned CPU emulation must be done by any x86 virtualization product, because you couldn't boot the OS otherwise - BIOS and the bootloader run in real mode first).@blakeyrat said:2) It's slightly more high-level than a normal virtualization environment. This is nice because it allows it to communicate with the outside OS so that things like, say, Copy&Paste work correctly. The emulated windows can appear in the same desktop as the native windows, so you don't need to do the window-within-a-window thing.
It's not actually any higher level than VMWare or VirtualBox, the only thing that's slightly different is that XP Mode by default uses a modified Remote Desktop connection instead of a virtual screen (but you can switch it to that with 2 clicks). Copy & paste between VM and host has been supported in virtualization products for years (VMWare doesn't limit you to just copying text, but supports most clipboard formats). Also, both VirtualBox and VMWare support displaying windows from VM directly on the desktop (IIRC, VirtualBox was the first one to implement this on Windows, though VMWare is slightly more polished; the best implementation of this that I've seen was Parallels on OS X though - I never used Parallels on Windows, so I don't know if it's the same).@pearl298 said:The only thing they all seem to share though is a very laggy/draggy mouse interface! Trying to do a graphicla interface with a VM is a true pain!
Never had any problems with this myself. VMWare is slightly less responsive than VirtualBox, but both work just fine and are perfectly useful for day-to-day work.
-
@ender said:
Also, both VirtualBox and VMWare support displaying windows from VM directly on the desktop (IIRC, VirtualBox was the first one to implement this on Windows, though VMWare is slightly more polished;[...])
VirtualBox doesn't do that. What it does (at least on Windows Guest/Linux Host, which I've just tested) is make the Guest desktop transparent for clicks and background. Bringing into focus any guest window will also raise the Z-order of all other guest windows......................... |Linux | | +--------+-----------------------b | |Win1 | | | | | | | | .....| | | |Win2| | | | "----------------------+---------' | | | `........| | | | | | | | | | | | `----------------------------Selecting the Linux window above, will (obviously) send both Win windows behind it. What's not so obvious is clicking Win1 will also bring Win2 in front of the Linux window.
No complaints about it as such, but it's not natively rendering the guest windows in the manner you seem to describe.
-
@PJH said:
@ender said:
Which is pretty much the only way to do that. There's supposed to be a seamless-explorer.exe somewhere that (to my understanding, I may be completely wrong on this) actually makes it behave correctly (IE: what a sane user would expect). Unfortunately it won't prevent Excel from doing the same thing, but that's another issue altogether.Also, both VirtualBox and VMWare support displaying windows from VM directly on the desktop (IIRC, VirtualBox was the first one to implement this on Windows, though VMWare is slightly more polished;[...])
VirtualBox doesn't do that. What it does (at least on Windows Guest/Linux Host, which I've just tested) is make the Guest desktop transparent for clicks and background. Bringing into focus any guest window will also raise the Z-order of all other guest windows.
Citrix has a similar feature and it behaves in the way the VB does.
-
@Lingerance said:
@PJH said:
@ender said:
Which is pretty much the only way to do that.Also, both VirtualBox and VMWare support displaying windows from VM directly on the desktop (IIRC, VirtualBox was the first one to implement this on Windows, though VMWare is slightly more polished;[...])
VirtualBox doesn't do that. What it does (at least on Windows Guest/Linux Host, which I've just tested) is make the Guest desktop transparent for clicks and background. Bringing into focus any guest window will also raise the Z-order of all other guest windows.... Except XP-Mode in Windows 7 doesn't do it that way. I guess there's at least one more way to do that. :)
All the stuff Ender said is probably correct, though. I'm not much of an expert in virtualization or emulation, and I've never used anything other than Virtual PC. With has the benefit of free-ness.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Except XP-Mode in Windows 7 doesn't do it that way. I guess there's at least one more way to do that. :)
Except the host and the guest are similar enough that it most likely doesn't have to do full emulation of the guest.
-
@Lingerance said:
Except the host and the guest are similar enough that it most likely doesn't have to do full emulation of the guest.
It's proper virtualization, except that it uses RDP by default (though it does also emulate a graphic card).
-
@ender said:
It's proper virtualization, except that it uses RDP by default (though it does also emulate a graphic card).
So it has its own HDD, junk IP addy and everything?
-
According to Microsoft's TechNet, XP-Mode in Windows 7 runs XP in the background and then uses Remote Desktop (RDP) to communicate with it and provide integration features such as clipboard sharing, etc. If you enable the virtualisation window (so applications are no longer transparent on the W7 desktop) you can see the full startup, beginning with the usual BIOS startup. In short, its doing full emulation of the guest.
-
@tgape said:
Someone already pointed out rootkits. However, there are Linux/MacOS/Solaris/Other unix viruses. Some of them are even cross-platform (will work on several or even many unix OSes). It's just that there's no money there, no fame, etc.
+1 - Just a quick reminder kids, UNIX has been around a lot longer than Windows has been, sooooooo.....another place *nix wins - being first at getting hacked and getting viruses. Now, in modern times - as in this freaking century, the Microsoft marketing gods have beat that unix bitch down into obscurity so who cares about hacking something that is irrelevant? Hate [fill in software vendor], love [fill in software vendor], who cares, they produce frustrating and crappy software but it probably has kept a large majority of us employed - or would you rather do [fill in your job role here] for free and live off of the peace, love, and communal effort (read: hippie) of your fellow man?
-
@LinuxRulez said:
who cares, they produce frustrating and crappy software but it probably has kept a large majority of us employed - or would you rather do [fill in your job role here] for free and live off of the peace, love, and communal effort (read: hippie) of your fellow man?
I'd rather we start moving towards working less as a society, the technology is there. Ultimately we should be moving towards a utopian society, but thanks to a greedy oligarchy we're moving further away from that each passing day. Making less jobs is actually a good thing.
-
@Lingerance said:
So it has its own HDD, junk IP addy and everything?
Yup, t hough by default it uses NAT networking.
-
@b_redeker said:
One of the things I like about this forum is that people don't get religious over an OS or distro; it's a tool, and while you might have a gripe over how a certain aspect works, or why Windows ME is crap or how hard it is to get your app running on different distro's, it's still a tool, and you don't get too worked up over it any more than you would over a hammer or a nice chainsaw.
Agreed.
@b_redeker said:
Flamewars here are reserved for ye old "USA vs
the Normal Worldcheese-eating Eurofags vs. the sundry, easily-bombed lesser races" debateFTFY.
@b_redeker said:
Flamewars over hammers vs screwdrivers are just plain boring, even worse so when based on ignorance.
You're just saying that because you're a hammer fanboi. Screwdrivers can do 90% of the things hammers can do, and without smashing your finger.
-
@Lingerance said:
I'd rather we start moving towards working less as a society, the technology is there.
No, it's not, unless you mean "by accepting a significantly lower standard of living". If you want that, just become a farmer; you'd work a lot less and you'd have just enough to live. Nobody's forcing you to work in technology, dipshit.
@Lingerance said:
Ultimately we should be moving towards a utopian society...
The great thing about "utopian societies" is that the definition is so vague they can be anything you want them to be. For example, I am in favor of eliminating all of the whiny, ignorant little Canucks on the Internet. That's utopian. Start up the furnaces, boys! Let's see if your commitment to hackneyed utopian rhetoric will stand up to someone other than you calling the shots.
The problem with "utopian societies" is that they take a single vision of what is good and discard any notion of nuance, discourse, subjectivity or dissent. They are by their very nature totalitarian. And nobody is unhappy in a utopian society; nobody disagrees or desires anything but what has been laid before them by that society. So when people inevitably disagree or are unhappy, the problem must lie with them, and they must be shown the error of their ways, with whatever means necessary. After all, what are a few million lives worth when weighed against the glory of Paradise on Earth?
@Lingerance said:
...but thanks to a greedy oligarchy we're moving further away from that each passing day.
Not because the whole "utopia" concept is ridiculous and naive. Not because in the 20th century hundreds of millions died at the alter of utopian thinking. Not because even after the mass-killings of dissenters these socieities were ultimately so dysfunctional and impoverished that they collapsed in on themselves. No, must be some other reason. Maybe some of the survivors of the last purge weren't pure enough in their thinking. Maybe there's some ethnic minority to blame for the failures of the utopian schemers.
@Lingerance said:
Making less jobs is actually a _good_ thing.
Wrong. Economies thrive and wealth is created by trade. The fewer participants, the less healthy the economy.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
The problem with "utopian societies" is that they take a single vision of what is good and discard any notion of nuance, discourse, subjectivity or dissent. They are by their very nature totalitarian. And nobody is unhappy in a utopian society; nobody disagrees or desires anything but what has been laid before them by that society. So when people inevitably disagree or are unhappy, the problem must lie with them, and they must be shown the error of their ways, with whatever means necessary. After all, what are a few million lives worth when weighed against the glory of Paradise on Earth?
Airstrip One, in Orwell's '1984', is a good example of a Utopian society. My spell-checker insists that Utopian should be capitalized.
-
-
@blakeyrat said:
Airstrip One, in Orwell's '1984', is a good example of a Utopian society.
Of course it is. Orwell may have been a Socialist, but he hated Communism.
@blakeyrat said:
My spell-checker insists that Utopian should be capitalized.
The proper noun should be, but I did not use it as a proper noun.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
My spell-checker insists that Utopian should be capitalized.
The proper noun should be, but I did not use it as a proper noun.
I blindly obey the spell-checker.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@morbiuswilters said:
The problem with "utopian societies" is that they take a single vision of what is good and discard any notion of nuance, discourse, subjectivity or dissent. They are by their very nature totalitarian. And nobody is unhappy in a utopian society; nobody disagrees or desires anything but what has been laid before them by that society. So when people inevitably disagree or are unhappy, the problem must lie with them, and they must be shown the error of their ways, with whatever means necessary. After all, what are a few million lives worth when weighed against the glory of Paradise on Earth?
Airstrip One, in Orwell's '1984', is a good example of a Utopian society. My spell-checker insists that Utopian should be capitalized.
Airstrip One was a dystopia - surely that's the whole point? And of course we can't have a perfect society - that's why Utopia means 'nowhere'. That doesn't mean we can't strive for it. An actual utopian society would be one which took account of people's differences. The travesties of communism and fascism were no more utopian than Airstrip One, but they're not what we're after.
However, it's still true that allying with the seals and going to war on Canada would be universally popular.
-
@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
Airstrip One was a dystopia - surely that's the whole point? And of course we can't have a perfect society - that's why Utopia means 'nowhere'. That doesn't mean we can't strive for it. An actual utopian society would be one which took account of people's differences. The travesties of communism and fascism were no more utopian than Airstrip One, but they're not what we're after.
Nobody argued we shouldn't improve ourselves. Of course, what constitutes improvement is largely subjective and varies from person to person. The problem is that a central tenet of "utopian" thinking is conformity; it favors the harmony of the communal over the freedom of the individual. On any scale larger than a hippie commune farm, this requires the application of statist force.
Inconvenient facts such as a differing of opinion are antithetical to a utopian state, because by definition a utopia lacks extensive conflict. This begets a powerful state. A powerful state begets abuses. The fact is, there has not been a powerful state in the history of man that hasn't been abusive. The more powerful the state, the more horrific the abuses. This is why America was founded on a different premise: that the freedom of the individual is the ultimate good and that the role of the state is generally to maximize that freedom by establishing basic rules governing interpersonal relations.
Utopian thinking, fully actualized, always results in dystopia. In every utopian apologist beats the heart of a tyrant; one who wants to remake the world solely as they see fit without the inconvenience of empowering others and allowing them the ability to choose their own way; one who lacks the wisdom to see that even the smartest mind can convince itself that the noble ends justify the horrific means; one who lacks the empathy to realize that no man wishes for the indignity of servitude, no matter how noble the master.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
No, it's not, unless you mean "by accepting a significantly lower standard of living".
The point of some technology is to make it easier or faster for a human to do a specific job, the point of other technology is to actually replace human workers. Both of these can be used to reduce the amount of work a person has to do to maintain eir standard of living, which in turn reduces their stress and gives them more time to do culterally beneficial things, be with their familly or even just enjoy life.
@morbiuswilters said:The great thing about "utopian societies" is that the definition is so vague they can be anything you want them to be.
Regardless of that, we're still moving towards a distopia where a select few have enormous amounts of power and the masses have little at all.
@morbiuswilters said:And nobody is unhappy in a utopian society; nobody disagrees or desires anything but what has been laid before them by that society. So when people inevitably disagree or are unhappy, the problem must lie with them, and they must be shown the error of their ways, with whatever means necessary.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating actually having the utopia as the end goal, it isn't. I'm well aware of the social issues that prevent if from happening, but that doesn't meant that striving towards being a better society is a worthy goal. My choice of words was poorly thoughy out.
@morbiuswilters said:@Lingerance said:
Having less jobs is still not a bad thing, keeping jobs for the sake of having jobs is far worse for the economy. Moving society and technology to a point where the costs of welfare and living is close to nil means quite a few things: 1) If there's sudden demand for a large amount of workers there's a massive pool just sitting there 2) jobs that are not needed for the economy aren't present and filled, which makes everything leaner 3) those inclined to do so are able to create works of culture and art without having to halt due to being unable to maintain themselves 4) prices drop as the cost of living doesn't need to be factored into things anymoreMaking less jobs is actually a good thing.
Wrong. Economies thrive and wealth is created by trade. The fewer participants, the less healthy the economy.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Well, my co-worker managed to drive a screwdriver through my hand's palm. I think it might be a bit harder to achieve with a hammer.@b_redeker said:
Flamewars over hammers vs screwdrivers are just plain boring, even worse so when based on ignorance.
You're just saying that because you're a hammer fanboi. Screwdrivers can do 90% of the things hammers can do, and without smashing your finger.
-
@Lingerance said:
Having less jobs is still not a bad thing, keeping jobs for the sake of having jobs is far worse for the economy. Moving society and technology to a point where the costs of welfare and living is close to nil means quite a few things: 1) If there's sudden demand for a large amount of workers there's a massive pool just sitting there 2) jobs that are not needed for the economy aren't present and filled, which makes everything leaner 3) those inclined to do so are able to create works of culture and art without having to halt due to being unable to maintain themselves 4) prices drop as the cost of living doesn't need to be factored into things anymore
Right, so all we need to do is collectively give up all our financial and socioeconomic power evenly and try real hard not to create desire in others which would result in the coveting of all the neat stuff you have. And also try to outlaw bartering, or something, because otherwise things will very quickly decay back into a society which has to work in order for its people to get what they want.It doesn't matter what level of magical technology we have. As long as desire exists, there will be trade; and where there is trade there is money; and where there is money, there will be back-breaking, mind-numbing work to get it. (For various and subjective and often figurative interpretations of "back-breaking" and "mind-numbing".)
In other news,@bannedfromcoding said:
Well, my co-worker managed to drive a screwdriver through my hand's palm. I think it might be a bit harder to achieve with a hammer.
Tell us the story!!
-
@Xyro said:
... and to be able to actually do that they'd end up creating jobs, which to actually be pofitable would have to do something better, which is all good.Right, so all we need to do is collectively give up all our financial and socioeconomic power evenly and try real hard not to create desire in others which would result in the coveting of all the neat stuff you have. And also try to outlaw bartering, or something, because otherwise things will very quickly decay back into a society which has to work in order for its people to get what they want.
It doesn't matter what level of magical technology we have. As long as desire exists, there will be trade; and where there is trade there is money; and where there is money, there will be back-breaking, mind-numbing work to get it. (For various and subjective and often figurative interpretations of "back-breaking" and "mind-numbing".)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@b_redeker said:
cheese-eating Eurofags
If you would have proper cheese instead of gooey orange junk from a can, you would eat cheese too. I feel sorry for you. Also, what is it with American chocolate? Is it ignorance or do you just not have any tastebuds?
@morbiuswilters said:
@b_redeker said:
Flamewars over hammers vs screwdrivers are just plain boring, even worse so when based on ignorance.
You're just saying that because you're a hammer fanboi. Screwdrivers can do 90% of the things hammers can do, and without smashing your finger.
Typical $rewdriver corporate marketing propaganda, trying to hold hammers back with unfair competition. If you would know the first thing about hammers, you'd know that
sudo -u hammer -n -h ./safe.xml >> nail
will prevent you from smashing your finger. Alternatively, you can do apt-get gnammer or khammer, which is for wussy noobs, but this might fit you. Also, you could try gnailgun which is in pre-alpha but which is perfectly safe from a distance.
-
@Xyro said:
It doesn't matter what level of magical technology we have. [+keen insight into the human condition]
When I got home a few days ago, my building's lobby had a lost item tacked onto the message board. The item was a USB stick.
I coveted it not. It was probably a 1 or 2 GB stick, and I have 2 4GB. As there was no scarcity of this obviously valuable good, taking the stick didn't even cross my mind.
If I hadn't had a USB stick of my own, I may have coveted the stick on the board. But then I would have rejected the notion out of ethical conviction.
-
@dhromed said:
No prurient interest in even finding out what was on it? (Then returning it to the board afterwards.)@Xyro said:
It doesn't matter what level of magical technology we have. [+keen insight into the human condition]
When I got home a few days ago, my building's lobby had a lost item tacked onto the message board. The item was a USB stick.
I coveted it not. It was probably a 1 or 2 GB stick, and I have 2 4GB. As there was no scarcity of this obviously valuable good, taking the stick didn't even cross my mind.
If I hadn't had a USB stick of my own, I may have coveted the stick on the board. But then I would have rejected the notion out of ethical conviction.
-
@Lingerance said:
Regardless of that, we're still moving towards a distopia where a select few have enormous amounts of power and the masses have little at all.
We must live in different worlds. Although it's true that modern states are always taking more power, we tend to have a lot more power over our lives as individuals than pretty much ever before. It's true that as individuals, we tend to have less say over the power of the state, but that's more or less a trivial result of increased population and simple arithmetic.
-
@bannedfromcoding said:
Well, my co-worker managed to drive a screwdriver through my hand's palm. I think it might be a bit harder to achieve with a hammer.
Flesh wounds heal faster than broken bones in the hand. So, really, you were actually incredibly fortunate and your coworker did you a favor.
-
@boomzilla said:
The Atlantic Ocean cannot stop oil<input name="ctl00$ctl00$bcr$bcr$ctl00$PostList$ctl43$ctl23$ctl01" id="ctl00_ctl00_bcr_bcr_ctl00_PostList_ctl43_ctl23_ctl01_State" value="value:Filed%20under%3A%20%3Ca%20href%3D%22%2Ftags%2F_5F00_%2Fdefault.aspx%22%20rel%3D%22tag%22%3E_%3C%2Fa%3E%2C%20%3Ca%20href%3D%22%2Ftags%2FThe%2BAtlantic%2BOcean%2Bcannot%2Bstop%2Boil%2Fdefault.aspx%22%20rel%3D%22tag%22%3EThe%20Atlantic%20Ocean%20cannot%20stop%20oil%3C%2Fa%3E" type="hidden">
Well that's just shitty, because that oil is coming.
-
@Lingerance said:
@Xyro said:
Sweet, what bureaucrat-free world are you living in? Do they have any formal government there at all? I know it can't be near Europe. Can I join?It doesn't matter what level of magical technology we have. As long as desire exists, there will be trade; and where there is trade there is money; and where there is money, there will be back-breaking, mind-numbing work to get it. (For various and subjective and often figurative interpretations of "back-breaking" and "mind-numbing".)
... and to be able to actually do that they'd end up creating jobs, which to actually be pofitable would have to do something better, which is all good.My point is, though, jobs for the sake of jobs isn't a matter of good or bad, but of necessity out of the human condition. We'll never* reach the point where folks can just sit around all day with their hobbies without a paying job because the cost of living is so negligible. Technology cannot lift us out of our basic need to have neat stuff, to say nothing of the need for power and controlling others. And to have neat stuff, history has shown that humans are more than willing to devote a good third or more of their lives to doing something that doesn't necessarily matter one bit.
@Lingerance said:
The point of some technology is to make it easier or faster for a human to do a specific job, the point of other technology is to actually replace human workers.
There will always be shit to shovel, simply because we will it to be. This is so that at the end of the week we'll be one step closer to getting the neat stuff we want or think we need.
-
-
@b_redeker said:
If you would have proper cheese instead of gooey orange junk from a can, you would eat cheese too.
Hey, we have an entire state devoted to cheese. Why the hell else would we keep it around? That shit in a can is a calculated strategy to separate rednecks from what little money they have.
-
@PJH said:
No prurient interest in even finding out what was on it?
Leaving an infected pendrive in a public area is a relatively common method of starting a new infection or making your crap cross a security barrier.
@Xyro said:In other news,@bannedfromcoding said:
Well, my co-worker managed to drive a screwdriver through my hand's palm. I think it might be a bit harder to achieve with a hammer.
Tell us the story!!Short, boring and painful. Long and narrow flat screwdriver being held by a co-worker who gesticulates wildly when talking combined with a spinal reflex to cover yourself with your hand when you see something flying in your direction. Went in dead center and stopped on the bone.
... darn, I said "through" there? I'll blame it on the language barrier, OK?
Also, my previous post should say "would be harder with a hammer instead"... having BOTH hammer and scredriver would surely lead to better effect, like for example, achieving "through".
-
@bannedfromcoding said:
Short, boring and painful. Long and narrow flat screwdriver being held by a co-worker who gesticulates wildly when talking combined with a spinal reflex to cover yourself with your hand when you see something flying in your direction. Went in dead center and stopped on the bone.
I know that reflex. It's put glass through my wrist (well, through the skin) and left me with a looker of a scar. Moral of the story: don't get into fights with frantic females wielding coffee pots.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
We're just arguing semantics here. A utopia is a perfect society. The totalitarian states you describe are what we have come up with at times when attempting to create a perfect society, but they are manifestly not perfect. Or is there a more fundamental difference, in that you view a 'perfect society' as being what 'perfectly' fits one person's idea of a utopia, whereas I see it as that which best fits everyone's different views?@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
Airstrip One was a dystopia - surely that's the whole point? And of course we can't have a perfect society - that's why Utopia means 'nowhere'. That doesn't mean we can't strive for it. An actual utopian society would be one which took account of people's differences. The travesties of communism and fascism were no more utopian than Airstrip One, but they're not what we're after.
Nobody argued we shouldn't improve ourselves. Of course, what constitutes improvement is largely subjective and varies from person to person. The problem is that a central tenet of "utopian" thinking is conformity; it favors the harmony of the communal over the freedom of the individual. On any scale larger than a hippie commune farm, this requires the application of statist force.
Inconvenient facts such as a differing of opinion are antithetical to a utopian state, because by definition a utopia lacks extensive conflict. This begets a powerful state. A powerful state begets abuses. The fact is, there has not been a powerful state in the history of man that hasn't been abusive. The more powerful the state, the more horrific the abuses. This is why America was founded on a different premise: that the freedom of the individual is the ultimate good and that the role of the state is generally to maximize that freedom by establishing basic rules governing interpersonal relations.
Utopian thinking, fully actualized, always results in dystopia. In every utopian apologist beats the heart of a tyrant; one who wants to remake the world solely as they see fit without the inconvenience of empowering others and allowing them the ability to choose their own way; one who lacks the wisdom to see that even the smartest mind can convince itself that the noble ends justify the horrific means; one who lacks the empathy to realize that no man wishes for the indignity of servitude, no matter how noble the master.
