In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:24:30 +0000
<5703928.FVPlSjj6BJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> __/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Thursday 14 December 2006 00:35 \__
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nedd Ludd
>> <NeddLudd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:51:30 -0500
>> <3OOdnf87E4eeGR3YnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> "John Bailo" <jabailo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:doSdnb-qVL5RqR3YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>:
>>>: Schestowitz(Linux)
>>>:
>>>: Reliable
>>>: Uses data and fact to make logical points
>>>: Always on duty 24x7
>>>: Stable...not easily rattled
>>>:
>>>:
>>>
>>> Roy's reliability and being on duty 24x7 are a result of
>>> Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. A stable person would not
>>> post links to news article about Linux 24x7.
>>>
>>> His situation is not healthy.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe *you're* obsessed with *him*? :-P
>
> Why all these criticisms that try to convince me (or others for that matter)
> that I'm mentally ill? Just to get people off my back, have a look at what I
> do elsewhere and realise that I don't spent that much time around here. Two
> weeks ago I was runnerup in the local mr. fitness contest, for example. I
> enjoy a variety of activities, but the trolls would like to believe that I'm
> some zombie. I can usually shrug it all off, but when Gary Steward starts
> making up stories about being beating by the police, then that's just libel.
> Should I even need to address these made up stories or just let the slander
> carry on? The matter of fact is that people who invade a Linux newsgroup to
> express their anger and upset people... well, /these/ are the people who are
> mentally-challenged. They should seek anger management treatment, I think. I
> am /never/ here to upset trolls; I'm here to advocate the technology which I
> know for a fact will win, as well as help science and engineering. The only
> question is, how /quickly/ will the transformation happen? There are forces
> that try to delay the inevitable, but the destined state of technology can't
> be defeated.
>
I'm not sure I know regarding your mentality (or for
that matter mine; one is seeing at best a facet in a very
complicated jewel, most cases -- you've provided a good
illustration thereof above, and of course I'm far from a
medical professional), but I will comment on "destined
state of technology" -- that is a form of defeatism.
Of course, there are some interesting issues outside this
newsgroup but briefly put it's slightly problematic to say
"destined", as the humans almost always are an unknown
factor, and tend to surprise one. :-) If you can, get
some predictions circa early 20th century and see how well
they match up with current affairs. I'd present an example
from the Web but Google is being reticent again. (Sigh.)
And technology is of course invented by humans, for good
or for ill -- for example, Doctor Joseph-Ignace Guillotin
thought it was a more humane form of execution to use
the device named after him, as opposed to a sword,
axe, or hanging (and the blade of his device is now
stained by history, metaphorically speaking -- it may be
less well-known here as we were busily handling our own
affairs just after *our* revolution at the time), and the
automobile, which is wonderful for transport, is also very
deleterious to the atmosphere without certain modifiers
("emission controls", "additives", "fuel economy").
The Thames used to catch fire during the early part of
the Industrial Revolution, on occasion.
Technology, like humans, is a mixed bag. Linux is of course
one product of human ingenuity (as are Google and Windows),
and it all fits together, to some extent: the invention
of a new device or idea might stimulate people to invest in
a company to develop that device or idea, market it, if
necessary manufacture it, and do something with the profits
(either give them back to the shareholders, reinvest in the
business, invest in other businesses, or pay taxes).
And it's probably the case that technology is changing *us*
as well, though it's hard to say exactly how. But it is
naive to think that evolution stopped when man picked up a
rock, sharp twig, or jawbone as the first tool. A guess is
that we'll get fatter (this is an obvious one), but the arm
muscles might get more well-developed in the finger area
(to drive the fingers) as the rest of us turns into flab,
except for the cranial area -- assuming we don't simply
attach things directly into the brain.
I'll admit I'd hope for something a little more noble. :-)
But c'est la vie.
Various sci-fi authors have postulated what they might
have considered "waypoints" or developments somewhere
along hypothetical timelines, such as Trantor, basically a
planet made out of steel which was the head of a collapsing
galactic Empire, variations of intelligent ships or planets
which are festooned with sensors in a "grid" mode, or the
berserkers of Fred Saberhagen, which could be construed
as lethal intelligent machines.
Which of these is closest to the truth? A good question, and
probably not one any of us today can answer -- although speculation is
always possible. :-)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Woman? What woman?"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
