Slashdot Mirror
ZNet interviews Richard Stallman
ProgressiveCynic writes "ZNet has just published an interview with Richard Stallman. Much of the interview will be review for Slashdot folks, intended to introduce ZNet's audience to the free software movement, but many interesting bits remain including a discussion on the outlawing of free software, patents as applied to literature, and this quote: 'I'm a Liberal, in US terms (not Canadian terms). I'm against fascism.'"
RMS: The basic idea of the Free Software Movement is that the user of software deserves certain freedoms. There are four essential freedoms, which we label freedoms 0 through 3.
I wonder how many Znet readers are confused out of their minds as to why he'd start with zero.
RMS > You could not run free applications on such a system (sic, trusted computing). If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime.
In other words. You Must Pay the Microsoft Tax.
Wow, RMS was rather lucid in this interview. I'm impressed.
Who will guard the guards?
The subject says it all really...
I don't know if this long anon post contains true things or not, but I have to admit that it was an interesting read.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
For those puzzled, RMS's Liberal comment is in reference to Canada's Liberal party.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I think it's a fairly obvious trollf +water
The first result is from encyclopediadramatica.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=RMS+has+a+phobia+o
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Cue the GNU
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
ignore the flamebait mod, i know you weren't out for that. seriously interesting post, but you should have left it finished before the " i just want to say one thing " paragraph....maybe the stuff after that was slightly flamebait (although unintentional)
In an otherwise informative article, I learned that Mr Stallman is yet another person doesnt know what the hell fascism is (nor do most people who throw around the term "Bush Regime"). :rolleyes:
I quote RMS
"Fascism is a system of government that sucks up to business and has no respect for human rights. So the Bush regime is an example, but there are lots of others. In fact, it seems we are moving towards more fascism globally."
If you're going to throw the F word around at least learn what it means. Fascism has little to nothing to do with business, instead it is about the state or more specifically the ruler. It is a pragmatic form of government when it comes to business. If anything, it functions under a permanent war economy with the major industries cooperating. In other words, it is a centralized economy that still retains private property and freedom of commerce.
The US and other countries today are not fascist nor resemble anything like a fascist nation. Does big business run the country? Yes. Do politicians suck up to it? Yes. Is this a good thing? NO! But its NOT fascism. To call it such is at the least a bit ignorant.
Does anyone care? Probably not, but I have to try.
PS:
I'll have some ridiculous replies accusing me of being a Bush supporter (hardly).
" JP: A definition would help here too. RMS: Fascism is a system of government that sucks up to business and has no respect for human rights. So the Bush regime is an example, but there are lots of others. " RMS shares ideas with Noam Chomsky.
Go to prisonplanet.com, its podcasts for 15th Dec has a interview with him too.
Now yo'all stop voting for the 2 parties , vote independant, and no neo-cons any more.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
An interesting use of the word antisocial... Reading Stallman's comments about the Open Source movement (or the Open Source campaign as he puts it), the vocabulary and tone he uses wouldn't be out of place in Marx's Communist Manifesto. Just like Karl's work though, you can't help but agree with every argument he gives, yet you know deep down inside that it just won't work :(
Well at least I'm doing my part running Lin ^H^H^H GNU + Linux...
Stallman sez "I'm a Liberal, in US terms (not Canadian terms)."
Sweet! Does that mean Conservatives get Linus? Awesome!
Can anyone please kindly tell me, what's the different of "Liberal" between US and Canada? I live in Asia and know less about this. Thanks in advance.
Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)
I misread the title, and thought it was Ziff Davies and not Znet. As soon as I saw that an image flashed through my mind: "John Dvorak endorses Richard Stallman's philosphy as hell has frozen over."
Scary that.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I noticed another post referring to RMS sharing his ideas with Noam Chomsky, while I admire both men as intellectuals, I'm afraid the greatest threat to liberals and democrates of all spots and stripes is that we are our greatest enemies. We don't jump to the conclusion that we are right, rather we tend to list to the left and circle ideologies and problems, canvassing them from all sides and in all lights. Come vote time we tend to fragment into camps warring as much with each other as with the neocons. Chomsky has in recent federal elections siphoned off votes that might have helped elect a Democratic President.
Maybe in America as in Canada we need to put aside our petty differences and vote en bloc to push the neocons out of power before the definition of facism RMS casts at America today becomes applicable in the U.S. and in Canada.
I'll now dismount my soapbox and return to fretting about the present Federal election at home.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
However, when this combination was made, the users got confused, and began to call the whole thing "Linux'. That is not very nice.
First of all, it isn't nice because there are thousands of people involved in the GNU project who deserve a share of the credit. We started the project, and did the biggest part of the work, so we deserve to get equal mention. (Some people believe that the kernel alone is more important than the rest of the operating system. This belief appears to result from an attempt to construct a justification for the "Linux" misnomer.)
looks like GNU is starting to take too much credit now.
ill post AC cos i know this will be marked troll,
without linux, who knows if GNU would have lived on or even still existed (how would HURD have turned out?). without GNU, linus could have found many replacements for GNU, or maybe he could have written his own.
seriously RMS, just let it go.
Did RMS really just call George W Bush a fascist?
I'm not, like, imagining that, am I?
When RMS came to speak here at Cal I was not too impressed. He was interesting, entertaining, but the guy seemed (this especially came out in the Q&A session at the end) like a ranting madman rather than a proper spokesman for GNU. ZD must have REALLY edited the interview's transcript to get it into the form that's been put up on the site.
I am not trying to just get points by being the odd one out here, but seriously - do you really expect the general public to accept free software let alone programmers? Given the shaky prospect of let's say...making a living, for example, I doubt it will be accepted broadly.
I agree that the FLOSS model has led to much innovation. But the story ends there - I for one, won't be spending my life without a job, contributing to free software (although I might do it as a side-hobby). The argument that one can 'modify' software or do custom jobs to make money is idiotic. Do you seriously think there is a market there? Often, people claim that (as pointed out in 'The Magic Cauldron' by ESR) over 95% of software is not for sale (so called 'custom' jobs), but it is ridiculous to expect programmers to bank on the availability of such jobs, especially because they don't get much attention. Also, how is that figure calculated? Total number of lines, discrete tasks, etc. Furthermore, most freelance work or custom applications don't pay well compared to salaried jobs.
There are strengths to OSS, as well as weaknesses. I find Linus's view of OSS much more acceptable than those of the Stallman (GNU).
As in who pays for RMS' living and traveling expenses? Donations to the FSF? Someone with insight please comment. I think in many ways RMS is brilliant, but how has he paid his bills promoting FOSS for the last 20+ odd years?
JP: But is there still an ethical issue if there is no alternative? If, say, there is no free software way of doing a particular job, for ZNet for example?
RMS: One can live without doing those jobs.
Very easy to say if you've never had a "real" job, as RMS's bio makes it clear he has not. By "real" job, I mean a job in which you are required to meet deadlines imposed by customers and to produce end products specified by customers, otherwise your business fails. When your whole working life has been spent in a succession of pure research environments, with no contact with other people outside the research environment, you'll naturally assume that research is all, and all the other software engineers working on customer-driven projects are the minority. Sad to say, that ain't the case.
JP: What criteria? How can one decide such a thing?
RMS: If you absolutely must do a particular job then you should contribute to the creation of a free replacement. If you are not a programmer, you can still find a way to contribute--such as by donating money so others can develop it.
That's a nice ideal. However, it's worth noting that there are cases (such as the recent fork of XEmacs) in which people *have* thrown money and development time at GNU projects and got nothing but disappointment. Linux is another example - the reason we're using GNU/Linux instead of GNU/Hurd is that RMS and the whole GNU kernel team were fundamentally unable to develop a working Hurd kernel in the time that a single Finnish student could write the first-draft Linux kernel. They spent FIVE YEARS on Hurd and had literally nothing working at the end of that time that anyone could use.
Frankly, if I was running a business and I had to keep my family fed, there's no way in hell I'd be relying on GNU to develop the tools I needed. Their track record is simply appalling. If the tool exists then I'll use it (GCC, for example), but if the tool doesn't already exist then only an idiot would pay GNU to write it for them, bcos they've already proved their inability to do work to time. The only way I'd trust GNU to do it would be to hire the relevant GNU engineers directly and impose penalty clauses. Donations to a project and hope that they do what I need them to do? No way.
Grab.
I've found that most people who spew this kind of rhetoric (Bush is a fascist, etc etc) to found their opinions solely on emotions, typically disregarding and downplaying facts as it suits their emotions.
:(
I'm as much a supporter as the next Slashdot reader of liberty and freedom. But I wouldn't call the President a fascist. I don't know why posters have decided there is no definition of fascism (and instead of have chose the "what does fascism mean to me?" definition, which can mean anything and still be "correct") when merriam webster clearly defines it as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" or "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control".
Now, I realize that OUR GOVERNMENT (which no one seems to recall doesn't mean only Bush) is focusing on "The Greater Good" (security of the nation) and sacrificing personal liberties. This is a Bad Thing(TM), but not simply Bush's fault. As much as this pisses off the crazy hippies at my uni campus, this is not cause for Presidential impeachment. Sorry hippies.
Courtesy of the Media, I see how people see Bush as the Big Bad Bully Fascist, despite the fact that Congress is equally to blame for our misguided Foreign Policy.
Now, if Bush were to throw down his bible, dissolve the Congress, and start red penning the Constitution, I'd merrily join the hippies and call him a Fascist and call for revolution. Of course, that's not happening, regardless of what the hippies see in their pot-enhanced Minds Eyes. In addition, no political partys have been oppressed, people are rather freely and openly (perhaps too openly, as I don't like my tuition paying for the removal of graffiti) protesting against the Bush administration, so I'd hardly call this anything close to true Fascism.
For a reader/poster base which so proudly marches behind the Scientific Method and facts, Slashdot sure is a sorry ass place when it comes anything Bush related, with almost everyone seeing what they want to see and believing what they want to believe. I get that people don't like the President; all I can say is next time vote if you didn't. You only have to endure two more years of him and then he'll be gone forever. It should be pointed out here that Fascist typically don't just leave office and give up power. But this being Slashdot, I'm sure someone will propose that he wont leave office despite his term ending.
Fascism is the belief in nation over individual. This can include protecting special business interests, particularly those who provide some sort of symbiotic support for government (like political supporters or businesses which will wholeheartedly co-operate with government), but it is much more general than "sucking up to business".
RMS is a terrible representative of the free software movement. He preaches to the converted, instead of winning hearts and minds.
Take a look at this article, based on real-world fascism study. (The link to the original study can be found there).
I can sorta agree that what article outlines is not exactly what _I_ understand as fascism too, but it confirms, that it is a rather controversial term and RMS's usage of this term is reasonable enough.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
The fact that it's true does not imply that it's a troll.
Seriously, man. ESPECIALLY in this day and age, it takes BALLS to be absolutely a hundred percent no holds barred no bullshit 100% DEDICATED to the exact letter of What You Belive Is True. It might be "socially awkward" or "a career impairment" but this is, I firmly believe, the one possible instance in which a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin grade Lawful-lawful Good-good Dedication To Cause is actually - in some capacity - having a positive impact on the lives of many.
That his intensity of focus could also make him an object of ridicule is a natural side effect of said dedication. i doubt I'd be able to talk to the guy about software or legal issues for more than a handful of syllables before the punching instinct kicked in, but where would modern software be if it weren't for GNU and the GPL?
Free Software and Marx have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Marx was a social critic who (correctly) surmised that the workers of his day were unfairly exploited, but then used voodoo economics and bad Hegelism to go off on a wild apocalyptic-cult trajectory.
By contrast, Free Software is not a cult, and it is not a "scientific" view of history. It is simply a proposition that one of the inalienable rights of Homo sapiens -- along with the right to free speech, free press, and democratic elections -- is the right to freely use one's computer. (Granted, computer use is not in the usual list, but if Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson had computers, I am sure they would have put Free Software in the rights of man.)
Marxism belongs to the general category of apocalyptic cults (like belief in rapture and the singularity).
Free Software belongs to the general category of campaigns for a specific rights (like womens' suffrage and the civil rights movement).
Why is the Parent not modded funny, someone please mod it up.
What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
The roots of Linux lie a long while ago now. Isn't it about time we all moved on?
The Hairy Ranter aspects of Linux, these days, aren't a net positive. They keep Linux in the image of a previous generation. They foster the image of a cult and they politicize all discussion. This is not helpful. Folks want computer software, not an invitation to man the barricades in Paris 1968.
If these old war horses took up painting or playing the violin for a few hours a day instead of re-running yesterday's battles in black and white the world might be a happier place. And a lot more folks might be drawn into an open-minded comparison of pay-for and no-pay software. Yes, technically, it is GNU/Linux. But the world knows it as Linux. There is no turning back now.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
Once I put my coat over a camera before giving my speech, when I learned it was webcasting in RealPlayer format.
though i agree with much of what he says, this guy never ceases to amaze me.
i think during the last 10 years he's grown a little more sour than he was before all this (GNU) linux "controversy". i certainly sympathize with the GNU project on being underrepresented in the public awareness, but RMS will not change this only by acting sullen!
i'd like it if a majority of home users used free software, but his position on the alternative is more than crass:
Q: [...]if there is no alternative? If, say, there is no free software way of doing a particular job [...]
RMS: One can live without doing those jobs.
what kind of an attitude is that? no wonder the OpenSource movement was founded, because confronted with this attitude or even affiliation few companies would consider adopting GNU Linux.
well, i'm glad that RMS is applying himself so productively to a worthy cause; i'd just hope that he'd go for a slightly more pragmatic way of spreading the idea of freedom. putting your coat over cameras might otherwise be perceived as slightly "coockoo"
jethr0
I can accept that not all software will be Open Source. I can even accept that someday, Linux may become obsolete and be replaced by an Operating system no one has seen yet or exists yet.
Regaurdless of whatever RMS's feelings may be, its important that F/OSS Survive. The ideals of F/OSS are democratic and transparent. The closed source software industry routinely violates many rights of people.
Now. There is a larger problem here. Its a Freedom vs. Control debate. Here is the issue. Most Americans really don't support tolerance or pluralism. They just sort of pretend to. There is opression in the world. The commercial software industry, as it is today, is just one example of it.
What most Americans support is a very dilluted Christian Theocracy. Working to change that and open things up and reform things is goiing to be extremely difficult. But, Western civilization has both a history of openness and reform, and control and repression.
Gates wants money and Stallman wants power.
Yup. Fascist.
Yes, Stallman hates fascism so much.... he was against a war against an actual, genuinely-based-on-facism government.
As for his own teenage-bedroom-angst definition of fascism, let's just skip that embarrassment for all our sakes.
Will any luck, the neutopia is just around the corner.
P.
I know I'll be slammed for that, but it's hard to say it any more clearly
After reading the article I am really worried about software patents and treacherous computing. Please help ZNet migrate to free software by registering and showing your support at the following link. http://znet.2y.net/zbb/index.php
Creativity uninhibited www.kreeti.com
Many good, bad and trollish things have been said about RMS and he has done his share of stirring (which I think is good).
/. or other internet poll?
But who will replace him? Nobody lives forever (unless the medical boffins crack the longevity thing).
How would you recognise the person that you want to be the lead visionary of the FSF? An idealist? A pragmatist? A software engineer? Someone with a reputation as an uber coder?
Does DVD Jon fit the bill? Too young and too "controversial"? No political rep.
Linus? Probably doesn't care enough about politics.
Bruce Schneier? On too many watch lists?
There are probably at least a million people who would be good at the job and I have no clue (cue trolls) who they might be.
By vote on a
Paid up members of the FSF will probably decide. If you don't care for the FSF ideals this may not be a problem, if you do care but aren't a member - sorry you don't count.
Sucks doesn't it.
Or will the political visionary thing die or "fork" when RMS isn't there to be the lightning rod to cop the abuse hurtling from all directions.
Personally I wouldn't take the crap he deals with every day and the frustration at some of the idiocy in the world he deals must be enormous.
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
Pick your fights since you cannot fight all of them. So, who do you pick? nVidia seem to know that there is a worthwhile market out there and are knowledgeable enough about the GPL to work with it (if by bypassing it ...). It is therefore a high-value target with some considerable need to be in the Linux market (Linux renderfarms are profitable).
Who else would you pick?
Globalization of Knowledge and the Freedom to use that knowledge in a way that profits all seems to be the point here. Let's not confuse Globalisation of Knowledge with multinational corporations who work at keeping everything hidden from the public which so far has earned them their money.
How does Stallman get paid? What does he do that he recieves a paycheck to you know...buy food, pay the bills...perhaps rent or a house payment? Where does his money come from?
Because it sounds like he doesn't accept money for any programming, and that's basically what he does all the time.
Does he work at a company that does something totally different than computers and computer related things? Does he work at Pier 1 or Dennys or where ever during the day and at night he programs and writes his manifestos?
I'm not trying to be a troll here, I honestly would like to know. He seems to be big on everything free as in beer AND free as in every other definition of the word. He seems to spend all his time working on free software and promoting GNU and all things GNU so how does he get compensated for all this?
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
That's interesting - in the UK liberal means "centre", with a slight lean to the left. While conservative is "right". So in the US I thought the republicans are "right" (the equivalent of our conservatives) and the democrats are "left" (the equivalent of our old labour party, although they're pretty much "right" now). Is that correct?
No. Republicans are extreme right, Democrats are right. Your Tory party is about as far left as our Democrats, while our replubicans can best be described as ranging from far to the right of your Tories to even further right, up to and including to the right of, well, if I say his name, someone will invoke Godwin's Joke.
The Democrats are pro-business, about 40% pro-war, mostly but not entirely against institutions basic to the rest of the developed world (such as national, comprehensive healthcare, subsidized access to university for every intellectually qualified prospective student, etc.) and pro-corporate welfare (subsidies, tax breaks, business incentives, etc.). The democrats do believe in a secular separation of church and state, due process, and other quaint constitutional notions no longer in vogue in the United States, and they do by and large support women's rights, including their right to reproductive choice.
The Republicans are pro-business, about 95% pro-war, almost entirely against institutions basic to the rest of the developed world (national heathcare, etc.), and are pro-corporate welfare. The republicans by and large do not believe in a secular separation of church and state, play it very fast and loose with due process, and are seemingly unconcerned with other quaint notions of constitutionality such as the right to be secure in one's person (privacy). They almost entirely do not support womens rights, and believe a woman's body becomes chattel of the church and state upon conception and remains so until the feotus matures into a human being and is born, whether the woman likes it or not.
As you can see, the political menu de jour in America is: would you like your leadership to the right, or to the extreme right? It is interesting that more and more companies are following Daimler-Chryslers lead, and moving their operations to Europe, where the national heathcare systems have remained affordable while American healthcare costs have gone through the roof. The Darwinistic system Republicans and many Democrats have lead us to erroneously believe to be more economically sustainable than "those damn European socialists" is in fact much less scalable, and much less maintainable, than their systems. Myths of Canadians standing in line to come to American hospitals notwithstanding (sorry, having the Canadian equivelent of Bill Gates decide to jump to the front of the queue for heart bypass surgery by buying a place in an American hospital doesn't count--and it's surprising that, all this while we're lauding our system for being so great, no one asks about the person who got bumped out of the queue by our wonderful system to accomodate the wealthy Canadians who can't be bothered to wait their turn in their own system, nor does anyone seem to notice that the truly wealthiest-of-the-wealthy are all going to Paris and London for treatment, not the US, but I digress), we have the most expensive, and least bang-for-buck medical system in the developed world, so much so that companies are finding it more affordable to operate in Europe than in the US, long vacations and better benefits notwithstanding.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Which part is true, the "lol jews did wtc" bit maybe?
Either you didn't read the post, or you're an idiot. It's a fucking cut-and-paste troll.
Isaac Asimov created the Zeroth Law of Robotics...I guess one can blame him for starting with zero...
The Wikipedia entry for Facism is currently flagged "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
If you read through the discussion you'll see claims that facism is incorrectly being tied with right wing politics
And for that American Heritage Dictionary definition;
A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism
The dictionary.com refrence which also lists the American Heritage Dictionary as its source has something quite different
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I want a neutral argument here, but that second definition doesn't have the "liberal spin" to it. In other words, you don't see extreme right or merging of state and business leadership, but instead the traditional definition of facism, which has a dictator with total control over the government and the economy.
Interpret this as you will, but I see here a case where information does not equal truth. There are so many facts to choose from, that people pick the ones that suit them best. If you hate Bush, you pick the first definition, and count the ways in which Bush is worse than Hitler. If you support Bush, you pick the second one and accuse the smelly hippies of spreading misinformation.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
The company I work at has two arms. There's an arm which develops bespoke software solutions for businesses, and these are generally Windows-based because that's what the company is already using or what the company knows about.
The other arm makes websites for local small businesses. This arm was created mostly as a little monetary prop-up between big software projects when the company was small. About a year ago an enterprising young web developer decided it'd be easier for him if he wrote a simple CMS to manage our website. Since this was not an officially-approved project and the website was running on a Plesk server at the time, he wrote the CMS in PHP using mySQL for the database. Once the boss got wind of this he decided it would be nice to use this software for client sites so that they could update their own stuff without having to come back to us.
A year on our CMS product has come on in leaps and bounds, and it is that I spend most of my time working on. However, it's like a little island of open source in an otherwise Microsoft world. Consequently, all of the development happens on Windows servers with the Windows version of Apache usually relegated to some non-standard port because IIS is in the way on port 80. There's only one non-Windows server in the whole place and it is not allocated for development. Open source gets a rough deal in my company, and I suspect the same is true in most places.
He may now be able to moderate other people's comments because of this.
RMS: There are some special circumstances. To develop GNU, I used Unix. But first, I thought about whether it would be ethical to do that.
I concluded it was legitimate to use Unix to develop GNU, because GNU's purpose was to help everyone else stop using Unix sooner. We weren't merely using Unix to do some worthwhile job, we were using it to end the specific evil that we were participating in.
Hypocrisy pure and simple. I love how earlier in the interview he says:
JP: But is there still an ethical issue if there is no alternative? If, say, there is no free software way of doing a particular job, for ZNet for example?
RMS: One can live without doing those jobs.
Clearly one can write an operating system without using an operating system. I have done it and I'm sure others in Slashdot-land have as well. To blithely say everyone else should follow his draconian rules, but he is immune because of "special circumstances" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
and I don't mean just say "wikipedia"; I mean find out who contributed the article and ask them where they got the bit about "economic corporatism" from. Until you do that, the indented part of your article has no more credibility than any other slashdot comment (and judging by the moderation on this topic your "5, Informative" actully reduces your credibility).
I have found a nice text in the archives of ZNet about the definition and historical role of fascism, highly recomended:
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/barparenti.htm
To be honest in the current political climate it would be hard to find someone in Europe who wouldn't be considered liberal in the USA - the current US polirtics make Genghis Khan's wealth redistribution policies look positively progressive - and Mussolini would be considered practicaly a commie!
Genghis Khan was a brutal conqueror. But cities that submitted to him paid a 10% tax and accepted a rather draconian though functional legal system received functioning markets and trade without much interference. The US today under Republican leadership has a federal tax rate of 35%. If you withhold some of that 35% your will not be tortured and executed by the IRS as you would be by withholding from Genghis Khan. You will only be tortured. Lord knows what stratospheric levels it will reach if the Democrats ever return to power. Some of GK's policies indeed seem progressive.
an ill wind that blows no good
I'm a Conservative, in US terms (not Canadian terms). I'm against fascism.
Why point out the fact that he is liberal? Can only liberals hate fascism? I don't go around saying "I'm a Conservative, I hate Socialism" That seems awefully insensative for a "Liberal"
... The freedom to call my "free" software whatever I like.
... and then get their facsist dig in by insisting on controlling the actual language and terminology used to discuss the subject. If RMS wants anyone to take his notions on free software seriously, perhaps he should begin by supporting the notions of freedom-of-thought and freedom-of-speech.
Some activists with a bug up their rear whine on and on about how unfair everyone else is
the wtc bit isn't true actually. (That's World Trade Center I'm guessing)
I know this with certainty because I'm really really Jewish (so I can speak to all other Jews in realtime and we all agree and we all work together and when we're not taking everyone's money which we already have anyway we're busy planning to take over the world whatever that means and... oh yeah, and eating bagels with lox).
In fact the guy who owns the company which owns the wtc building is Jewish, but you've gotta be really fucking delusional if you think he convinced a bunch of Saudi Arabians to fly 2 planes into the buildings as part of an insurance scam.
29 mpg. YMMV.
Calling the prez a facist?
I bet he just got bumped up on W's list... don't be surprised if RMS meets a sudden and unfortunate demise... hope they don't arrest him and try him in court.
Judge: "Please place your hand on the Bible and swear an oath to tell the truth..."
RMS: "Judge. Notice that I did not call you, 'Your Honor' as I do not honor the authority that you claim to hold. Furthermore, I will not place my hand on a Bible and take an oath. The Bible is a book of fairy tales and fables that I hold no respect for as it enslaves the mind of man. And..."
Like I do. What I mean is that I see FOSS (but not necessarily GPLed software, though I like the license) gives equal grounds for everyone to compete. And competition on fair grounds promotes innovation.
A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
Seriously, why are people with razor, hair clipper, and soap phobias drawn into technical fields? RMS is a walking stereotype of the geeky programmer/engineer who wanders the halls of the office all day long looking for people he can distract from their work with his repellant appearance, offensive odor, and war stories about how he saved the day 10 years ago by installing Linux on a flashlight. Such a person has abandoned all hope of ever seeing a woman naked outside of the confines of anime porn.
It is unlikely that someone who is most passionate about and most talented at software engineering would choose a career in another field. But if you shared RMS's sense of ethics (which, admittedly, most people don't), you probably should choose your conscience first. A trite example: if you were morally opposed to weapons & were an engineer who was offered a job making weapons, would you?
Your post remind me the article by Bertilo which proposes a number system without the zero and proves that it is possible:
Sennula nombrosistemo.
I'm just speechless...
l man_keynote2.jpg
g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimania_stal
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/pics/tnlob2004-3.jp
What a leftist, liberal, hippie.
I swear to God, people like RMS are the reason I hate Linux.
Stallman would say that you shouldn't take that kind of software engineering job.
somehow, I sincerely doubt that RMS has ever had to actually *work* a day in his life. RMS doesn't know what in the hell he's talking about.
I don't respond to AC's.
http://www.gnuse.cx/
I have lived in the US, the UK, France, and Spain; I know quite a bit about (political) life in
other European countries. With this perspective, I have to say I agree with you, but then I have to add
that in most European countries except the UK the situation is actually reversed, when
compared to the US: it's either Left or Extremely-Left.
We still have plenty of Communist parties who are not ashamed of their radical communist views, just in the same way that you have republicans who will not be ashamed of their fascist ideas.
(well, maybe not with the adjective "fascist", since Fascism got much worst PR than Communism
thanks to the Holocaust... I'm not saying it shouldn't have, I'm saying it was more of an
accident than a logical consequence of fascist ideology per se... it could've been the
other way around if Lenin or Stalin had happened to be racist.)
If you ever plan on retiring, you'd best not believe it either.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1019055.html
"'I'm a Liberal"
Yeah, I kind of figured that out from all the anti-Bush stuff on this website.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
... because if he was, he wouldn't be espousing that businesses throw away any competitive advantage that they may have, and instead throw it away by giving their software away to their competitors. That's one thing about this whole OSS thing that the zealots don't understand... software can be, and often is used as a competitive advantage. Why would a company (say mine) "share" it's code for it's custom apps with competitors, with the *hope* (and that's all it is) that one of my competitors will contribute enough to the project to make their contribution outweigh the loss of my competitive advantage via my software? It makes -zero- sense from a business standpoint, which is why businesses are, by any large, not interested.
Of sure, I wouldn't mind using any free/OSS tools that were already built. If they offer more value than their proprietary counterpart, then it's my obligation to also use this software to my advantage, as well. However, I have no incentive to open up a single line of code that I own.
I don't respond to AC's.
Fascism has little to nothing to do with business, instead it is about the state or more specifically the ruler.
Take a look at 1936 Germany. Government went hand in hand with corporations especially for the rearmament process. Krupp, Messerschmitt, Seimens, Volkswagen, Reichwehrbank, and hundres more... All were part of National Social Program or supporting. Yes those businesses were around way before National Socialism came to power in 1933 but when it did they jumped on the bandwagen and even used slave labor provided by the Nazi's.
Not only that they assisted in the remiliterization programes and assisted the Nazi's with campaign funding. The Junkers weren't always nazis themselves, but they helped a great deal.
The industrialist even had their own war crimes at Nuremburg Trials notably Krupp and the head of the Reichwehr banks.
And no there wasn't true freedom of commerce either... Everyone supported the government whether they liked it or not and if the government dictated many business practices but the businesses often use sway of the Nazi party to get what they wanted. The businesses that support National Socialism got monopoly rights over particular areas. (although they did have to fight over government contracts such as the Porsche vs Krupp over the King Tiger tank turret design)
Italy's fascism was a bit different though, but it helped if your corporation got on the good side of Il Duce.
Still... If corporations own the government, it isn't much of a difference from Hitler or Il Duce, but they won't have as grand designs. Heck at least Il Duce stood up for the common Italian man at least in his grand ideal (although it sucked if you disagreed with him) and didn't sit around scheming how he is going to force them to make him personal corporation more wealthy at their expense. He was going to build the 2nd roman empire ya know.
Although I bet Goebels would have loved DRM schemes in order to prevent anything other than authorized media being played in the Reich.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Uhm... it's not only liberals who dislike Bush. He isn't a conservative-- witness the greatest expansion of government power in over fifty years, and the greatest increase in government spending. Also note the unprecedented attacks on personal liberty.
The only thing "conservative" about Bush is his willingness to fuck America (and a good portion of the rest of the world) over in the name of Big Business.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The author intended this as a clever joke playing off RMS hairiness.
Should be modded as humor.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Most left-wing "liberals" don't understand just how fascist they are.
Apperantly, most right-wing "conservatives" don't understand just what fascism is.
They see their aims as being "good" and other people's as "bad". They assume superiority over others who do not share their view, and sneer at others, assuming that other people can't possibly decide for themselves what is good for them (eg over healthcare, transport, choice of computer).
Speak in terms of black and white much?
No, we just sneer at hypocritical greedy and/or stupid motherfuckers who think they can fuck with whatever country they want, take away whatever civil rights they deem inappropriate, increase federal spending worse than the "liberals" ever did, increase governmental powers way beyond what the constitution allows, (all of this in the name of "fighting terrorism"), remove all restraints from big business, allow 45 million Americans to go without basic healthcare, and . . .
Oh, fuck it. Just go read the wiki entry on fascism; it pretty much covers it there.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The Hairy Ranter aspects of Linux, these days, aren't a net positive. They keep Linux in the image of a previous generation.
This isn't about Linux. It's about an ideal-- the ideal that information is power, and those that wish to close up and hoard information are really trying to hoard power. It's the concept that the power of information belongs to everyone equally, and that noone can "own" information.
Linux is merely a byproduct of that ideal.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
OK, the subject line is meant to be inflammatory, but hear me out. What I have to say really mostly just regards the presidency, not members of congress or local government.
I do not consider it a democracy when some closed, oligarchical, plutarchical process selects the list of people who may become president. So what if you get a vote, when your vote is between the lesser of two great evils? Name the last president that wasn't the supported candidate by either the Republican or Democratic party. Now explain to me how the process for choosing those 4 or 5 people who are Democratic or Republican candidates is democratic.
Explain to me how someone who falls outside the "platform" one of those two parties presents can become president.
Explain to me how someone without the backing of billionaires can become president.
Of course, I tend to have a total lack of respect for members of the House, and they *are* elected democratically, so arguing whether or not our electoral process for the president is democratic or not may be a moot point.
Fascism isn't likely to recur? To quote from above:
"Fascism is associated with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, and, after attaining political control of a country, a powerful, dictatorial state that views the nation as superior to the individuals or groups composing it."
I think that is a very apt description of the current government of the People's Republic of China. Don't let labels fool you: even their rhetoric is more nationalist than socialist.
or license either. I was looking for one. In all the others one could have found the article under GPL.
Senthil
It's Z Magazine's website, and I'm pretty sure it predates CNet.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Your powers of deduction do you credit. Yes, RMS would have to confess that he is not a businessman. He is an academic.
... "share" it's code for it's custom apps with competitors, with the *hope* ... that one of my competitors will contribute enough to the project to make their contribution outweigh the loss of my competitive advantage via my software?
You seem to think that not being a businessman is to exist in a cesspit. Does it occur to you that there are many who do not admire businessmen, to whom the word evokes an image of a mean little shopkeeper ripping people off, or of a magnate fiddling the books on a grand scale? To whom the word "business" itself does not give good vibes?
one thing about this whole OSS thing that the zealots don't understand... software can be, and often is used as a competitive advantage
Oh dear, I don't know where to start. The "zealot's" understanding is quite a few levels deeper than that. We (I assume you will include me) understand only too well. Microsoft have become the most successful company in the world on the basis of competitive advantage given by software. The difference is that you lean back and say that's a good thing, but we don't - in Microsoft's case at least.
Why would a company
Because improvements can result, for example in security and interoperability, that lead to improvements that will sell to the public more all round. As things are, the public are becoming disillusioned with computers and the internet.
It makes -zero- sense from a business standpoint, which is why businesses are, by any large, not interested.
IBM. HP, Novell, Red Hat, Apple and Sun are. That's every major company involved in Operating Systems development except Microsoft. The reason - they want to get (back in most cases) into the Operating System market, and Open Source is the most promising way.
>Even though there are no clear definition of Fascism there is definititly
>clear that corporatism - the merging of big business and the state - are
>part of Fascism.
You have it backwards. Corporatism has nothing to do either with "big business" or, necessarily, corporations. It's a form of collectivism where the state usurps authority and control of the other civic, economic, or religious groups. A capitalist free market system is the antithisis of coporatism and fascism. If you're going to apply the terms of "left-wing" and "right-wing," then as forms of collectivism, corporatism and fascism are "left-wing." The successful labeling of fascism by advocates for the left as being "right-wing," while communism, its only slightly more extreme form, persists in being called "left-wing," while a huge victory for the left, has left a lot of people awfully confused. Every fascist government that has ever existed has, in both word and deed, been a socialist government. So at least in the way the terms are used in the U.S., the "left" advocates a form of government closer to fascism, while the "right" advocates a form of government closer to libertarianism. You can cite characteristics of the right, such a a greater sense of nationalism, and a greater desire for law and order (the practice of justice, not the TV show), which when taken to the extreme are considered characteristic of fascism. But in terms of philosophy and form of government, the opposite is true. America will never be fascist because it will never tolerate socialism (or "gun control" for that matter). But take your average European country, add an overblown sense of nationalism (you can skip that last step if you chose France), and add a leader who is charismatic and ruthless enough to consolidate power in himself, and presto-chango you have a bona-fide fascism.
e.g. >Non-free software is basically antisocial, it subjugates it users, and it should not exist. This is all dogma. If I like a particular software that someone has worked hard to write, I don't mind paying for it. You do not ask your plumber to work for free (nor that he/she will) Sometimes he is just says moronic things.
Like in France:
a first stage to vote for who you want
a second stage (with the two or three best of the first stage) to eliminate the one you want least.
Not perfect, but the first stage allows a better view of the range of preferences.
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Seriously, man. ESPECIALLY in this day and age, it takes BALLS to be absolutely a hundred percent no holds barred no bullshit 100% DEDICATED to the exact letter of What You Belive Is True. It might be "socially awkward" or "a career impairment" but this is, I firmly believe, the one possible instance in which a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin grade Lawful-lawful Good-good Dedication To Cause is actually - in some capacity - having a positive impact on the lives of many.
Are you arguing that anyone who is "100% dedicated" to the exact letter of his/her own belief system is "lawful good" because it takes "balls" to be that way? I really think you happen to like him only because he's dedicated to an unpopular cause *that you happen to like*. There are plenty of fanatics out there (and, yes, I claim that RMS is a fanatic) who are just as fervent, if not more so, than RMS is.
Is RMS willing to die for his belief? Is he willing to kill for it? If the answer to both of those is, "no," then how can you claim that he's "100% dedicated"? It would mean that he values his life and the lives of others higher than his own Truth(TM).
Other fanatics aren't as "weak" as he is in that regard. Take, for example, the thousands of Muslim mujahideen who fervently believe that killing infidels is God's work. They believe 100% that Islam will dominate the world and that anyone who resists should die, including you and me. I'm a gay man. How do you think I feel about muslims who want Islamic law over me (and are willing to kill and/or die to make sure that it happens)?
Take, for example, Randall Terry. He is the most infamous anti-abortion activist in the USA. He openly pines for theocracy (and he uses that particular word). Here's what he said about abortion providers: "When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you and we will execute you." How's that for "dedicated"? Is RMS willing to take power and execute the producers of non-free software? Sounds a little less than "100% dedicated" to me.
Take, for example, PeTA fanatics. Not only do they want total veganism, but also total animal liberation. This means that ANY type of animal research used for medicine and health would be banned. This means that any child whose life could be saved through animal products would have to die. Is RMS willing to sacrifice childrens' lives for the cause of free software? PeTA fanatics will respond to this message by denying that animal research is beneficial in any way at all. Of course, it's trivial to dispute that claim with abundant evidence, but why should evidence matter to a fanatic? If mere evidence is going to sway you from the Truth(TM) then you're not "100% dedicated", are you?
My point here is not to bash the groups that I happen to despise, but to point out that what you seem to be supporting is fanaticism. There are millions of things in the world that you can get excited about and millions of worthy causes that need your attention. Pick a few that you happen to like, and exploit your own unanswered question of, "Why am I here?" as the impetus to do good works in the world. But the people who decide that there is ONE and ONLY ONE cause worth championing, at the expense of all other causes, at the expense of all reason and evidence, and at the expense of others' lives, liberty, and property? Those are people to be exposed, denigrated, and ignored. They are not worthy of respect as they are dangerous, self-indulgent assholes.
If you want the most direct form of the value judgement, then here it is, and I make no apology for it:
Fanaticism is evil.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
You're wrong in that you are associating RMS with Open Source. He is quite clear that he is not nor has he ever been a proponent of the Open Source philosophy. In fact, he answers a question to this regard in the interview. Furthermore, as to whether free software is good for business, IBM and Red Hat, among other businesses, don't seem to agree with you.
/. subthread makes the same error by focusing on business concerns above other concerns of greater importance, even to the point of trying to justify the behavior RMS calls "antisocial". Ironic in two senses that this issue is adequately addressed in the article (a rebuttal that comes before the point is made, a prebuttal?) and that the error goes unidentified in so much discussion (perhaps the clearest sign that we are so often taught to think of business above all other things that we can't see the predicament we put ourselves in).
But more importantly, there are more important concerns than business. Ironically, one of the questions gets to this point as well—RMS is sometimes seen as focusing on something not chiefly important to the exclusion of more important things. Yet this
—J. B. Nicholson-Owens (jbn@forestfield.org)
SS should have said SMS. Ooops.
America is a ONE party system. Your vote is yes or no for the main corporate stand in.
Me thinks RMS is hypocritical about his naming convention. Free Software dictates that the user is Free, the user is not subjegated, the user can do as the user wants woo hoo!!!! Freedom.
EXCEPT -- Don't you dare call the OS Linux. No, RMS as the developer of all-but-the-kernel gets to decide what you call it.
You can USE it - but you can't NAME it.
In the days of the French Revolution the revolutionaries and anti-revolutionaries where debating at the Assembly. The revolutionaries (associated with freedom of thought, freedom of religion, democracy, the people etc..) formed a faction on the left wing of the Assembly, while the anti-revolutionaries (associated with traditional values, the current establishment, the monarchy etc..) where sitting in the right wing. Thus became to be known the terms right and left wing. In the US, the democrats can be said to be left wing and the republicans right wing. When stating extreme movements, communism is the best known extreme left wing movement, and fascism the best known right wing movement.
Apperantly, most right-wing "conservatives" don't understand just what fascism is.
It's the code word for "bad" in leftist-speak. If you actually ask a leftist to define what separates a "fascist" governemnt from others, you usually get a bunch of fuzzy, feel-bad characteristics wrapped around a tired, old hatred for individual property rights. I notice you tried to use wikipedia to define it for you.
Speak in terms of black and white much?
The most hypocritical and and annoying behavior exhibited by most leftists these days is the claim that they "don't see the world in black and white" and are "nuanced" people who are capable of "seeing shades of gray". Then, with an uncompromising lack of nuance, they paint all non-socialists as "fascists" or "Nazis". George Bush is a "Nazi" even though he doesn't want to kill all the Jews. I asked a "liberal" friend of mine if he couldn't see any difference between a Pat Robertson conservative and a Ron Paul conservative, and he said, "From my perspective, they look the same to me." I, being a gay man who's ideologically similar to a Ron Paul "conservative" (he's libertarian), apparently look no different from Pat Robertson to my "nuanced" friend. So much for "nuance"!
And here, the parent poster was accusing leftists of thinking in black and white terms (something I definately seen in leftists as well as in gays, Christians, Muslims, PeTA, etc etc etc), and you respond by accusing him of doing the same thing. The lack of insight you exhibit is sad.
No, we just sneer at hypocritical greedy and/or stupid motherfuckers who think they can fuck with what-
And this is what typical "liberal discussion" boils down to nowadays. I used to listen to liberals, but they've turned into such bitchy, whiney hatemongers that I just can't stand it any more. I mean, just about every "liberal" I talk to is a total *downer*. They are the group that is always complaining, always hating, and *never coming up with any solutions to the problems they hate*. Please, please, please let go of your hatred and rejoin the rational discourse of rational people. Liberals have often stood up for good things, and you do immense disservice to your causes by being so consistently dour, condescending, and vicious.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
When the only two parties you vote for are both of corporate nature, how much of democracy is really left?
Business power is bad, so globalizing it is worse.
He's completely ignoring the fact that without "business power", there'd be no cheap computers for his software to run on, there'd be nobody to pay for him to speak, and we'd be living in a society in which "free software" would not even be feasable. He spits in the face of all of the businesses that are allowing him to live his free lifestyle. He simply doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I don't respond to AC's.
From other comments made by RMS, I don't think he understands all freedoms like free trade.
It's funny how RMS can understand freedom in the software movement, but when it comes to other freedoms like - buying and selling at a price not interfered with by the government, or buying from another country, or hiring from or working in another country - he seems not to understand freedom at all.
If I have the money, and someone else is willing to give me something for it, or do something for it, voluntairlly without coercion or harm to others - then why in the world should the government be involved at all.
Oh, brother. Even HE can't see that liberal and conservative are both just two sides of the same worthless coin. All hope is lost.
your an idiot. First off 2mil net worth is HARDLY anything to be proud of. Maybe you or I dont have that much money, but for a 65+yr old writer who has been an activist since the 60s, thats a very small amount. Especially if you consider the volume of work that he has produced.
Secondly, the whole article seems to live in a fantasy land. There is nothing wrong with making sure you dont have to live on the street, and nothing wrong with gaming the current system to survive. You probably havent invested much in your life so let me educate you a bit here. Generally, when you go to your financial planner and say "i have 20k, please invest for me" you are giving them control on where to put your money. they probably give you a say, but if your like me you dont really care as long as your not losing money. So hes not a financial god. BFD...
Just because you are a genius doesnt mean you dont need money.
the other thing i find objectionable about the linked article mr ac, is the idea that chomsky is a brand. SURE. as much as bob marley is or marcus garvey or ghandi. That has nothing to do with the worth, or non worth of what he says. Some people probably put on a che patch and think they are all badass. Otherpeople read what he wrote and, maybe dont even have a clear idea what the person looked like. It has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with what he says.
Last thing, the following quote "It would not be advisable to download the audio from one of his speeches without paying the fee, warns his record company" is moronic. Everyone who browses this site , AT LEAST, should know that record companies and artist are not one and the same. Infact what he says about property rights (which is also cited in the "article") is spot on what he thinks about it (or else why would he say it?). So given that, im sure he personally wouldnt care if you distributed his IP.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
RMS gets pissed when people call him "communist", yet turns around and calls Bush "fascist". I'm glad to see that the head promoter of Free Software is able to rise above the petty bickering and name calling of modern political discourse.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Suffice to say that just like the "Democrats" aren't the US's party about Democracy and the "Republicans" aren't all about a Republic the Canadian "Liberal" party isn't necessarily a species of the overly-broad term "Liberal". Indeed the term "Liberal" doesn't even match up terribly well between the two countries, and not with Canada being invariably the more 'liberal' of the two meanings.
My advice is if you're truly interested in getting a non-US view of the US & the world then consider spending a week or so watching the news from any Canadian (or other) network. CBC is quite good, it's peer CTV is also. After a week or two of viewing you'll start to become aware of the subtly different assumptions made, notice the implicit values are different, the sub-texts & code words don't match up to your US ones. It's also tremendously edifying to compare & contrast the same stories from both sides of the border, what leads the news and what doesn't, what points are expounded upon, etc.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Extreme right? Odd. Hitler originated from the social workers party (NSDAP)...
This is either a really bad joke or a display of ignorance the level of which shakes even Slashdot's tradition of Excellence in Ignorance to its very foundation.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
That is Stallman/GNU. Stallman came first after all.
Quick question..
What exactly is the difference between US liberalism and Canadian Liberalism?
I am an American that has [very briefly] lived in Canada before, and have since visited there a few times. However, I still don't understand the difference.. didn't realize there was a difference.
Can anyone provide insight into this?
RMS did nothing much for OSS, I mean, really.
While he talks less about himself than Perens does, he has a totally counterproductive attitude, compared to what Linus did and does, or compared to what maddog says.
Except being nasty with people trying to argue the fact that they have check to pay, mortgage and a family, RMS claims that only butterflies are a decent concern, and that a programmer should make a living by all means, such as cab driving or pizza delivery (Paris, 2 years ago).
RMS is an "handicapé social", to follow its very own terms, and should get pitty and understanding for this.
But rather than taking more than 10 years to non-release an hypothetic OS, he'd better give a hand on Linux rather than uninterestingly arguing that it should be called GNU Linux (who gives a fcuk ?) or scaring CIOs/CEOs by introducing himself as the most representative face of the OSS community.
I make money with OSS for over 10 years now, and I'm proud of making a good living. I work hard and get a good pay for that in France, I deserve it, so do my kids.
Sorry, no time for creating an account, it all came straight out of my heart.
Chris de la Mancha
---------------
"And I would say that Bush truely is a fascist, but that of course doesn't make the nation so."
---------------
I'm no Bush lover but I do think he means well. He's not a racist or advocating it and shouldn't be painted that way. I don't hate him or think he's a facist. He's just a C student (even with the best education and tutors money could buy) and is in way over his head. That's usually why C students get Cs.
His problem is that he's insecure and by surrounding himself with some elite philosophy types he thinks he can make up for that. In reality he should be listening to scientists and facts instead of too much ideology. The Neocons play him like a fiddle but unfortunately they can't seem to grasp the scientific method beyond allocating dollars to it.
This all really shows in the issues the current crop of Republicans prioritize or ignore.
It's not George's fault alone though.
Your going to laugh when I say this but I honestly think Americans are so used to movies they have a vision of what a president should look and sound like. Americans voted him in basically because he matches that vision more than Gore or Kerry. Reagan kind of proves the point you can be clueless and run the US. He actually didn't do a bad job as a cheerleader but thankfully he was never faced with a new major public dilemma like terrorism and IP. (I hate those terms)
The difference isn't the ability to write the GNU componants, it's the will. Stallman decided that everyone should be free to help themself and to cooperate with others, and he's dedicated his life to that.
It is both a tactical and a rational error for RMS to bring politics into this issue.
:)
I agree with RMS on many issues and respect the man-- but I am not a liberal as I definitely prefer less government policing and regulation than more. I would halve the power of government if I could and then start thinking about cuts.
He instantly alienates our happenstance common cause to 50% of the American electorate needlessly. Stick to the goal. Don't bring in collectivism and your utopia into the issue trying to drum up supporters that know nothing about the subject and will politicize the issue so that it only complicates matters further.
If really try to control IP it will require massive policing. There are many "broken window" costs of IP (police, courts, regulation, ill will, prison, etc..) In addition this would require absurd amounts of government spying which is a real threat to freedom. Regulation and government intrusion is what capitalism is against. Some so called capitalists are arguing ideologically (e.g. in their interests) as opposed to rationally... capitalism) This is unauthentic and basically criminal behavior.
The producer never loses possession of the good with IP albeit under the current system certain players will lose boatloads of money. Capitalism is not about profit or money---it is about allowing the best ideas and products to rise to the surface to improve our lives. Those are the only ones that deserve to be rewarded. If someones ideas or products can't survive this environment than they don't deserve to be there period. This is what makes our lives better over time. One type of surgery works-- another doesn't. Are we supposed to allow the quack to continue performing surgeries forever because he'll lose his practice because he refuses to change?
I feel some empathy but not as much as I do for all the people that will suffer to subsidize his quackery forever.
In addition-- as much as I sympathize it simply is not "stealing" as some in industry would assert (for obvious reasons since they are in a conflict of interest). As long as I another persons property retains his property I should have the freedom to act as I want. If someone builds a shopping mall next to my property and the price of my property skyrockets because of their choice... or I build a similar building capitalizing on the environment they created.... and drive them out of business.... I should not be extorted money because they freely made that choice knowing the variables involved. I'm not advocating stealing material goods here. Property needs to be respected to give incentive for people to work. Software, movies, and music are not property though. You can convince fools of that but ultimately it will not change their fundamental nature or properties. (sorry for the pun
The problem for old school I/P producers is their business model has been basically working off government subsides for close to a century and much of the world has finally caught on. Information scales and distributes differently than material goods and yet people were conned to pay over and over again for the same product.
I'm sure architects the world over would love to be payed for every person that walks into a building. How about every time someone flushes I get 10 points as a janitor "knowledge worker"? How about Google maps pays me to take a picture of my house from space?
There are fixed costs but few variable costs that come with production and distribution therefore no scarcity issues arise. Everyone can consume the same information till the moment they die and have many many exobytes left over.
As for innovation fears...
Big Hollywood blockbusters would mostly evapourate temporarily. However eventually software will bring down the costs of producing a 120 minute film at 30 fps to next to nothing so they'll appear again after a few years as collaborations of artists and entrepeneurs looking for fame and glory rebuild the industry th
Nope, he has never been paid by FSF. When FSF first had money to hire someone, he hired someone else because he knew that he would work even without pay, so the most economical use of the money was to hire someone else to help GNU. RMS, is, and always has been, a volunteer.
Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration.
Thank you! That needed to be said.
There's more than one valid way to cast and count votes, and many systems do a better job than ours of approximating what voters really want. The current system forces you to vote *against* your second choice if you vote for your first choice. Imagine if two candidates are running against Cthulhu and the opinion you want to express at the polls is "no more Cthulhu!" You can't moderate Cthulhu -1, so you're forced to vote for the more popular of the opponents.
Browse Wikipedia for terms like "Condorcet" or "instant runoff" to see some of the fun alternatives.
Even if the webcasting is not in RealPlayer format, how can he dispense with the proprietary code embedded in the firmware in cameras etc? If he check around him, I bet he will need to build many things himself (let me think about it: is the microcode in the CPU free as in `free speech'?).
And didn't he take aeroplanes? I think there is a lot of embedded code controlling the aeroplanes too....