Christoph Reuss wrote:
> REH wrote:
> > We all notice the immense contradiction between
> > people greedily taking everything they can, declaring
> > that everyone is only responsible to themselves while
> > building an internet of sites where the "butterfly effect"
> > is more the rule than their hyper individuality.
>
> For the record: The Internet wasn't built by Gates and his Y2K-bug gang
> (just as little as it was invented by Al Gore..) -- in fact, M$ "slept"
> over the Internet for years and then copied the technology developed by
> Netscape et al. Let's state this clearly: The Y2K problems which
> various members of this list are now experiencing are due to the Micro$oft
> dumbware they are using.
Hi Chris,
Most of the people that I talk to about this says much the same
about Gates and Micro-soft. However, for the record I was not speaking
of Gates only but the Libertarian Party cell that inhabits almost all of
silicone valley. They fund anti community initiatives all over the
country and one of their crew just did in fair minority hiring practices
in California as "socialist." Generally they are followers of Ayn Rand
and follow the new term of "Dynamists" as opposed to the rest of
us which they have coined "Stasists". Actually their history is
confused and their philosophy is a mongrel mix of romantic and
classical 19th century artistic & cultural styles. The mix shows
that they understand neither.
I suspect that the mix of digital mechanics that they use in
programming really is what they say, an ignorant mistake
based upon a two dimensional view of the world. Their
scholar's think tank is funded by that nutty Koch family from
Kansas and calls itself the Cato Institute which shows how
the media will kiss any body part that smells of money.
The Internet was the government's invention based upon a
need for scientists to communicate, or so the myth goes.
I suspect that they all had something to do with it, Al Gore,
Gates, the Army Band and all of the other connected
folks. My point was how they are rabidly anti community
(Gore excepted) in their politics and how that would make
them truly awful when trying to work from network integrated
systems when they don't believe in them. The key word is
"believe." I would call this a giant double bind for such
conflicted folks.
> They're not using mainframes from the 1970ies, they are using PCs with
> OSs from the 1990ies, but unfortunately, Gates has "migrated" the Y2K bug
> to the PC, ALTHOUGH there would have been plenty of storage space and
> upgrade changes to work with "complete" date formats -- as the MacOS did
> from the start.
On the other hand it could be just money and built in
obsolescence. Something that has been done often in
the past by big business selling individual products toconsumers. The PC is a
lot cheaper than an automobile.
> M$ also isn't interested in "hyper individuality" on the user's part --
> quite on the contrary, total "assimilation" to the "industry standard"
> (yeah, incompatible with itself) is the goal, with nobody but Gates
> calling the shots.
You mean mass production which is the only productive way togo. But you are
confusing the dynamics of the net with the
PC itself. My point is still that they have to inhabit the role
of the "Trickster" with such a massive commune like entity as
the Internet. It is literally vulnerable to anyone. Imagine what
it would be like for everyone to be able to change the traffic
lights in New York's traffic grid simply by running the clock
forward on their car and you get the linkage problem. The
only way I can see the net working is if there is standardization
of structure with individuation of the process. Those who still
think like process when they are responsible for structure are
like someone walking into another linguistic culture and speaking
only their own language while demanding that the others grow
up and speak his language which doesn't fit their culture or
personal lives.
> Dump the M$ crap and get yourself REAL software!
> Chris
This all reminds me of the Cherokee word for automobile,
obviously of recent invention. It is dicktulena. If you say
the word enough you will get the image of some drunk
dick driving down a two lane road, which means to us
"watch out!"
I'm sure we could come up with some comparable word
for this beast.
REH
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> "640K [of RAM] ought to be enough for anybody." -- BILL GATES, 1981
> [just like 8 characters for filenames...]
