LinuxQuestions.org
Did you know LQ has a Linux Hardware Compatibility List?
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Blogs > Shingoshi
User Name
Password

Notices

  1. Old Comment

    So I got my reservoirs for my computer today!

    That BIG black tube on the right that looks like a cross, turns out to be the 4" model of the Mazzei pump. Meaning it has 4" MPT fittings on both ends. Huge would be a better word to describe it. It's the largest of the PVDF series. Needless to say, I had no idea how large that thing was when I saw it (in pictures). Also needless to say, I won't be using it. It's kind of unfortunate that Mazzei doesn't make one (a dual suction port) like it in a 2" model. I based my idea of using it, on the fact that it would have been a direct fit with my reservoirs. Maybe I should tell Celia Mazzei that the next time we chat. But I have to tell you. I've looked at a number of injectors on the market, and there's simply nothing as pretty as the Mazzei injectors. And that goes for all of them. Just gorgeous!

    Shingoshi
    Posted 07-22-2009 at 09:39 PM by Shingoshi Shingoshi is offline
  2. Old Comment

    An insecurity complex...

    If there were door prises, you would get one!

    Hi Larry,
    Personally, I think I'm much too trusting with the security of most sites. I'm lazy in maintaining my own security, hoping the sites will take care of it for me. I know that's not the best way to do things, but like I said, I'm lazy!

    So I guess that means,
    I have the insecurity complex!
    Shingoshi
    Posted 07-05-2009 at 10:14 PM by Shingoshi Shingoshi is offline
  3. Old Comment

    An insecurity complex...

    I agree but I think most do not require strong passwords because it makes it harder for the members to remember their passwords. This especially true if they create a new password for each of the sites they are asked to join. Being honest I must have approx. 12 passwords I keep up with and I use the same one on about ten or more sites that I do not consider escentual for my use.
    Posted 07-05-2009 at 08:56 PM by Larry Webb Larry Webb is offline
  4. Old Comment

    Validation is determined by function...

    I think one of the best ways to determine the character of a group, is whether it is isolationist or not. If you find yourself confronted with a wall of "appropriate channels", you're facing an entrenched form of conformity. Objectivity seeks the most channels it can possibly take to a path of better solutions. The more a group defines what are appropriate channels, the less concerned it is with success and meeting goals.

    Conformity is by nature isolationist. Isolationism is a form of corporate restriction. It is exclusionary at it's core, and ultimately determines the ability of any group to survive.

    Objectivism is for the thoughtful. It is maintained by those who desire nothing less than to be always informed. Because with the lack of information comes a lack of options. And the fewer your options, the fewer your chances are to succeed.

    Shingoshi
    Posted 06-25-2009 at 03:31 PM by Shingoshi Shingoshi is offline
  5. Old Comment

    The progression of thought...

    An oversight in critical awareness...

    Actually, after going back and reading the opening lines of my initial blog, I really don't see how anyone could have missed this.
    Quote:
    This is something that I developed out of years of consideration, concerning the global condition of human consciousness, and the level of strife faced by humanity in general, an in relation to my own.
    The very fact that I begin by saying my ideology was developed from years of consideration would tend to dismiss another notion of it being recent and or tied to the presence of open-source. Although, I guess depending on your age, and the history one might have, maybe it can be assumed that open-source would have preceded a development of such ideas.

    But let's say for a moment that such an analysis were correct. That open-source had in fact inspired an ideology. What should we make from such an assumption? And what difference would it make substantially? Is it to be assumed that open-source is incapable of producing a higher level of reasoning than many are comfortable with? Are the values of open-source nonconducive to a notion of absolute equality? Are they somehow to be considered mutually exclusive? That having one forbids the other. [I will use <irc> to replace the person's name.]

    Quote:
    <irc> Shingoshi, this article is a wishfull thinking babble :/
    <Shingoshi> <irc>, we all choose our own future. I simply prefer a different idea than yours.
    <irc> Shingoshi, no, making up ideology out of open-source is like adding morality to religion ;p
    <irc> before you find out you end up with something which uses morality as excuse for it's existence
    One of the things that has always confused (and amused) me, is how many people have a real problem with concepts of morality. But then again, it makes real sense, since morality requires responsibility which most individuals refuse to accept. It simply is inconvenient to their selfishness and aspirations of personal greatness. Morality serves to defeat an unbridled ego. And the whole orientation of ego is to exist without limitation. So it should come as no surprise to anyone, that morality is always raised as a point of derision.

    Quote:
    morality: n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality]
    2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: {ethical motive}, ethics, morals]
    So I guess the precise question is, "is open-source a form of morality? Should open-source be thought of as any thing other than ethical?

    Shingoshi
    Posted 06-21-2009 at 06:52 PM by Shingoshi Shingoshi is offline
  6. Old Comment

    The relationship of open-source to communal consciousness.

    A matter of compensation...

    This is likely a highly idealistic vision of how things could, rather than maybe ought to be. As an artist, I battle with the notion of compensation for my own work. And yet, I have to consider the implications of my ideals. I have wondered what and how would fair compensation be provided to those who have done the heavy lifting so to speak, for society to benefit from the work of a few. And then I have to consider if more individuals benefit from and are inspired to contribute the goods and services to all, would we be a richer society for it? At what point does wealth no longer have meaning in the framework of society?

    I have this belief that the more any individual is consumed by their own need for survival, all individuals are equally bound by that need as well. I think I mean to say that the security of the group is bound to the security of the individual. That by being driven to securing one's own existence, the group is possibly compromised by the inequity that exists from the distribution of communal assets.

    In human society, we are driven to value the work of the individual, rather than the value of the individual. We are granted value by what we do, rather than that we are. It is to say that existence itself is not valuable to society for the individual to be valued. And while some who read this may think this is far fetched, let me remind all of you of something.

    For those who have imagined the world in the context of the vision described by Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, that society existed based on the value of the existence of the individual, not what they accomplished. If you remember the (TNG) episode where those individuals were found in cryogenic suspension (with the hope of arriving in a better more advanced society), they were awakened to find themselves far beyond the constructs of their understanding. Money and the accumulation no longer had meaning to the "current" society. The wealth of the tycoon was simply gone with the society he had experienced in his "previous" life.

    Granted, they also claimed to have cured the physical ills of their society as well. And such an accomplishment would largely eliminate any of the criticism forthcoming from reading this. Interesting that we are here now in this country (the United States of America) debating the necessity of universal health care, and the monetary effects it has on the destabilization of society. So I guess we need to ask, does Roddenberry's vision begin here with us in this generation?

    The fact is that those who simply seek to be amused by visions of what can be, are choosing a path of nonthinking. That's the very definition of amusement. Without thought. Those who are driven to understand how visions become reality, must do the hard work of considering the intricacies of the development of "paradise". You must think.
    Quote:
    n 1: in ancient Greek mythology any of 9 daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne; protector of an art or science
    2: the source of an artist's inspiration; "Euterpe was his muse" v : reflect deeply on a subject; "I mulled over the events of the afternoon"; "philosophers have speculated on the question of God for thousands of years"; "The scientist must stop to observe and start to excogitate" [syn: {chew over}, think over, meditate, ponder, excogitate, contemplate, reflect, mull, mull over, ruminate, speculate]
    When the task of contemplation is taken head on, then we can begin to set upon the task of making vision reality.

    I see open-source software as the vehicle for the distribution of knowledge. Where the individual is valued for knowing, not doing. Or should I say doing the work of knowing. I would rather see a society developed where individuals are compensated for how much the contribute to the equality of all beings, rather than how much they are able to accumulate for themselves, to the exclusion of others.

    So for me, my task is:
    The immediate equalization of all knowledge among all beings.

    Live long and prosper?
    Live long and become wise!

    Shingoshi
    Posted 06-21-2009 at 04:05 AM by Shingoshi Shingoshi is offline
    Updated 06-21-2009 at 04:11 AM by Shingoshi
  7. Old Comment

    The relationship of open-source to communal consciousness.

    The notion of the equalisation of knowledge is a noble one and I agree that acquisition of knowledge should not be inhibited by financial, legal or social barriers. However, there was a cost (financial and/or time wise) involved for the originator with obtaining that knowledge in the first place. That person is not certain of compensation for his time unless he is employed for instance in academia, the public or the private sector. So in my opinion the dissemination of communal knowledge does not have to be at no cost. Although it could and should probably be offered at low cost at least to make sure there is not a net loss while doing so and make the acquisition of it attainable for anyone.

    Open source or rather free software started out as a way to ensure software that was contributed to by many, would not get closed down and be used to compete against the original writer. By making infrastructure software open source, no individual or group can prevent a user from access to basic computer needs and that's a good thing. That is still the basic tenet of free software.

    Notwithstanding, what we observe in long-standing projects is group behaviour that cannot be explained in rational terms but rather emotionally in terms like "belonging" or tradition. It is exactly this line of thought that is dangerous to the evolution of these same projects, because they could stagnate to the point where individuals or groups suggesting advancement beyond what is deemed suitable are left to no other choice than to establish their own and leaving the one they have been part of. Sadly, this seems to be the only way to guarantee the freedom of thought that the original project once promoted before it fell into the trap of fixed lines of thought and established traditions.

    Despite seeing the stagnation in the general Linux community I still hope that the individuals making part of it will realise that it is merely part of the greater group of UNIX and other communities with many to have preceded and many to succeed it. This very fact will also ensure that there is a place for individuals and groups who do not wish to be beholden to the strict rules and lack of open-mindedness that permeates many projects.

    The only thing we can hope for that there is always room for change and thinking out of the box, when people would rather succumb to settling for the comfort of collective dogma and having other people do their own thinking for them.

    psychicist
    Posted 06-20-2009 at 08:17 PM by psychicist psychicist is offline

  



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement

My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration