German Linux Community Boycotting LinuxTag

em8chel writes "LinuxTag, Germany's major fair for Linux and Free Software, is facing a massive boycott from open source enthusiasts in the country this year. Although the event doesn't open for a week, the community is voicing their anger and disappointment on various forums about this year's LinuxTag running under the auspices of Wolfgang Schaeuble, the conservative Minister of Interior, whose positions on issues of interest to the community are controversial to say the very least. Due to online protests and calls for a boycott, the organizer of LinuxTag has released a statement (German version, serviceable Google translation), holding that the politician's policies and political views have nothing to do with supporting free software, adding that if the community boycotts LinuxTag, it's the open source software that will be hit the hardest, and that Schaeuble probably won't even notice."

Comments

Political albatross

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering Schäuble supported the invasion of Iraq by the United States, I can understand why many would not want to be associated with him. Then last month Schäuble said guilty until proven innocent is the way criminal jurisprudence should work. Sounds like this guy is kooky.

Re:Political albatross

[Opportunist]

More scared shitless. Still, either is no mental state I would want a politician in, how do you expect him to make level headed, sensible decisions for your country?

Re:Political albatross

[mano_k]

Schäuble scared? I don't think so.

Long before 9/11 when he was in the government under Kohl, he was allways pushing his right-wing law and order politics. In the current situation he can finally achieve his aims.

Re:Political albatross

[Anonymous Coward]

Then last month Schäuble said guilty until proven innocent is the way criminal jurisprudence should work.

No, he didnt. Quote:

"Die Unschuldsvermutung heißt im Kern, dass wir lieber zehn Schuldige nicht bestrafen, als einen Unschuldigen bestrafen. Der Grundsatz kann nicht für die Gefahrenabwehr gelten. Wäre es richtig zu sagen: Lieber lasse ich zehn Anschläge passieren, als dass ich jemanden, der vielleicht keinen Anschlag begehen will, daran zu hindern versuche? Nach meiner Auffassung wäre das falsch."

Way to tricky to translate for me, so here's Bablefish:

"the innocence assumption is called in the core the fact that we do not punish rather ten guilty ones when punishes an innocent one. The principle cannot apply to the danger warning. It would be to be said correctly: Do I rather let ten notices happen, than that I try to prevent someone, which wants to perhaps commit no notice from it? After my view that would be wrong."

Wow, that sucks. Anyway, i'm not at all a fan this guy but basically he's right on this one: When police, secret service, whoever, perceive an immediate threat to others they have to take action. No assumption of innocence until the threat is contained, every police force in the world will work alomg that line. The real debate is about what constitutes a 'perceived threat'. As always.

Re:Political albatross

[Zombywuf]

Although it's badly translated and therefore hard to pick out the nuance, it looks a little fishy. Yes if someone has a gun pointed at someone, you don't wait until after the trial to disarm him. However if there is a suspicion of a threat, do you run out and grab everyone who might be involved? How long do you hold them? It's this kind of thinking that can lead to a police state. It's almost exactly how Stalin operated.

Without access to a proper translation it's impossible to say how far he goes in this statement though.

Re:Political albatross

[saibot834]

Many civil rights activists in Germany are alarmed because of his proposals to stop the assumption of innocence when there is a chance to prevent acts of terrorism [1]. Civil rights activist see him as an enemy of the German constitution, as he is a strong supporter of telecommunications data retention and overall surveillance.
His views on invasion of Iraq was quite "normal"; his party, the CDU was supporting it.

Re:Political albatross

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, let me try to give a more comprehensible translation of his first two sentences:

Assumption of innocence means we'd rather let ten guilty ones go unpunished than punish someone innocent. But this principle can not hold if one has to protect against a threat. (Gefahrenabwehr : this one's really tricky, cause it doesnt explicitly say so but it is commonly used only in a context when a person is physically endangered)

So he's actually saying that Assumption of Innocence is indeed of high value to him, but this principle just cannot apply in the context of terrorist threats. Whether he's right about this and the methods he proposed is open for debate but it would be way unfair to put him in a line with Gestapo or KGB methods.

Re:Political albatross

[getha]

"Die Unschuldsvermutung heißt im Kern, dass wir lieber zehn Schuldige nicht bestrafen, als einen Unschuldigen bestrafen. Der Grundsatz kann nicht für die Gefahrenabwehr gelten. Wäre es richtig zu sagen: Lieber lasse ich zehn Anschläge passieren, als dass ich jemanden, der vielleicht keinen Anschlag begehen will, daran zu hindern versuche? Nach meiner Auffassung wäre das falsch."

What he says is basically this:

The innocence principle means that we would rather let 10 guilty men free than punish 1 innocent man. However, this cannot be applied to terrorist activity.

Can you also say: rather 10 terrorist attacks unstopped, than stopping someone who perhaps doesn't want to commit a terrorist act? My belief is that this is false.

Well, I see where he's coming from with that quote. But the question is in how far are you willing to go to stop terrorist acts. In my personal opinion in most countries we have already gone too far, and have started venturing into 1984-esque territories.

And on-topic to the main post: if the boycot is broad enough I'll bet he does notice. But when in recent times have boycotts worked to get attention?

Re:Political albatross

[Opportunist]

The Germans really don't have a good hand when choosing their Innenminister. First a lawyer of RAF terrorists, now an advocate of torture...

Maybe following the old saying "takes a crook to find a crook".

Re:Political albatross

[Yokaze]

> Then last month Schäuble said guilty until proven innocent is the way criminal jurisprudence should work.

First, I do not support Mr. Schaeubles politicial position.

But: He did not said "guilty until proven innocent is the way criminal jurisprudence should work". He said, while the concept of innocent until proven guilty applies to jurisprudence, it does not for the excecutive. Well more correctly, he did not mention the first part, only the one the executive.

While this is certainly true, I feel a bit wary, that he considers it necessary to say it that way in the press. His constant emphasising the needs of law enforcement over the rights of the individuals is suspect, to say the least.

Re:Political albatross

[Zombywuf]

Without more context it's hard to say if he's overstepping the bounds of commonly accepted political discourse. But if your phrasing of the second part, i.e. "... who perhaps doesn't want to commit a terrorist act?" is accurate (and I assume it is), the statement sounds more like sinister rhetoric than genuine pragmatism. If it were something more like ".. who will not commit a terrorist act?" it would set off fewer alarm bells in my head.

However, I am firmly opposed to the notion he's espousing, if we're fighting against evil monsters who want to destroy our way of life, turning into evil monsters and destroying our own way of life is not the best way to go about it.

Re:Political albatross

[damista]

This guy is way beyond paranoid. Over 10 years ago, he had a traumatic experience, when an assassination attempt put him into a wheel chair. But as it looks, he either didn't seek professional help or it didn't work.

He seems to see terrorists behind every tree and around every corner. He wants permanent video and audio surveillance for all public places, he supports ideas of scanning and storing cars number plates, he supports a nation wide "anti-terror database", which not only police and customs but also secret services have acces to, he wants access to all biometric data stored in passports for all law enforcement agencies, he's in support for more biometric data to be collected (and used of course), as mentioned above, he publicaly announced that innocent until proven guilty is the wrong way, he supports secrert services hacking into ALL computer systems to snoop for terrorists, he's in support of the long term storage of all communication data and so on. To top it all off, he's more than happy to give the US access to all the data collected. Well, considering the huge amount of terror attacks Germany has suffered, since the RAF (no, not the Royal Air Force) declared itself disbanded in the 90s, he's probably right.

This guy is not only paranoid. He's a danger to the German constitution, the people and the the democracy. He's paranoid beyond reason and people in a state of mind he's in should be deemed unfit for public office. But hey, maybe they'd have use for him in the UK. Their politicians love to spy on their own people too.

Re:Political albatross

[Anonymous Coward]

So he's basically a reincarnated Nazi. No news people don't want to be associated with such prick. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Political albatross

[Capsaicin]

First a lawyer of RAF terrorists, now an advocate of torture...

OK, I can see how being an advocate of torture might reflect poorly on a person, but since when is the character of a lawyer to be determined by the character of that lawyer's clients? Does the driver of the prison van which takes the acused to the court room also share in the moral culpability of the accused?

Re:Political albatross

[Ramtek]

God forbid someone conservative supports open source. The people on here who are against the war in Iraq act as if they have precognition and no for sure that it was the wrong thing to do. They don't know this and they cant grasp that their is a valid point of view other than theirs. You wan't to see intolerance? Look at yourselves. Now I'm sure I'll get even more "bad karma" from disagreeing with the collective. People here are every bit as bad as the allege their "enemies" are. Slashdot, agree with the majority or we will give you bad karma.

Re:Political albatross

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me say I full heartedly agree with you but let me also say your argument has more holes then a screen door. You should of compared it to people who cooked food to keep the guy a live or something better then the guy who is actually screwing him over because he taking him where he wants doesn't want to go. At least the guy making the food is keeping him healthy.

In other news.

[Spazntwich]

Half of Microsoft is reported drowned in a torrent of schadenfreude.

Re:In other news.

[Wolfger]

Where's the tracker for that torrent?

Re:In other news.

[Anonymous Coward]

here

Re:In other news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, something about "putting together a firing squad and forming up in a circle" springs to mind.

If the righteous don't show up for this thing because boogey boy has jumped on the bandwagon, then boogey boy owns the show and all the goodies that go with it.

If you want to own it, you have to be there. He's not going to just walk away from the ring and let you trot back to pick up the prize after he's gone, yes? Got to get your hands dirty, sometimes, pardner.

If there's any asset value to Linuxtag for the open source community, you can either tussle with the bad guys toe-to-toe or try to rebuild it from scratch somewhere else.

Seems Silly.

[Erris]

I might as well boycot Debian because it's under the auspices of GWB. Is this Wolfgang Schaeuble guy trying to taking credit for or promote free software? I'd be so very happy with GWB for the same that I might forgive him for the invasion of Iraq. Back in reality, one has nothing to do with the other.

The best way to defeat your enemies is to make them into friends.

Re:Seems Silly.

[Opportunist]

There are some people I don't want as friends.

I can understand where this security-craze he's in comes from. Maybe I'd react similar if I was nearly shot. He's terrified. He sees terrorists and assassins everywhere, and he wants to protect himself and his country from them. It makes sense. And actually I do even feel pity for him.

Usually, though, such people seek professional help, not a political career. When you look at his recent decisions and law suggestions, it doesn't border anymore on paranoia, it's way beyond that border.

Re:Seems Silly.

[headkase]

And boycotts are for withholding your money from companies that care about the bottom line. Linux is free and based on mutual benefit through cooperation so by not using every opportunity to refine the community in-general - such as the LinuxTag event - the boycott actually detracts from the very qualities that make open-source so nice.

Re:Seems Silly.

[Opportunist]

The distraction already started with inviting a politician that's anything but interested in freedom and cooperation.

I mean, could you see GWB as the patron for the annual meeting of the world peace league?

Re:Seems Silly.

[that this is not und]

What is the world peace league?

Re:Seems Silly.

[Opportunist]

Hey, one may dream, ok?

Re:Seems Silly.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The best way to defeat your enemies is to make them into friends."

Hello! That begs the question...

'How do you defeat your friends?'

Re:Seems Silly.

[Nutria]

world peace league

It's the pipe dream of the deluded do-gooder.

Re:Seems Silly.

[Anonymous Coward]

it is perhaps unfortunate that the us has such a powerful influence on the un; some see the un as corrupt but compared to how the us government can be...

Re:Seems Silly.

[hoojus]

I think we should have a justice league instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_League

Re:Seems Silly.

[the_womble]

Linux is free

That free as in........not .......?

companies that care about the bottom line

If you look at the list of LinuxTag sponsors, they certainly do care about their botton lines.

Of course, the argument that the boycott will do more harm than good is valid.

If you refuse to deal with people like this, it rules out promoting Linux to most governments.

Re:Seems Silly.

[Anonymous Coward]

'How do you defeat your friends?'

By being that sort of friend to them where they don't need an enemy.

Re:Seems Silly.

[that this is not und]

Heck. We already have a Just Us League.

Re:Seems Silly.

[M. Baranczak]

I might as well boycot Debian because it's under the auspices of GWB.

If Debian was "under the auspices of GWB" I sure as hell wouldn't use it. But it's not, so this is a moot point. The real question is, why the fuck is a Linux conference being sponsored by the Interior Ministry? And what's the nature of this sponsorship? There's a blurb on the linuxtag page, along with the Minister's cheerful mug, but it's in German. Does anybody know what's going on?

Re:Seems Silly.

[fritsd]

He's not just a sponsor, he's the Schirmherr though I'm not sure what that means. In dutch, "beschermheer" is the kind of scary monster Larry Niven conjures up in his book Protector. (Think: the Brennan-Monster). Sure sounds scary to me...

Weren't Protectors noted for their paranoia? (and looking like old men too.. hmm..)

Re:Seems Silly.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Usually, though, such people seek professional help, not a political career."

Perhaps, he too, is an opportunist. ;)

Re:Seems Silly.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not just a sponsor, he's the Schirmherr though I'm not sure what that means.

Schirmherr was an honorary position in the SA. He was the guy who carried the umbrella for the Gauleiter.

Boycott schmoycott

[Anonymous Coward]

Those with a stake in open source software will attend, the rest doesn't matter. Schaeuble won't even be there, so there is no chance for a confrontation, which is probably a good thing, because Wolfgang Schaeuble is a red rag to many technology-minded people in Germany. He's the one pushing for the storing of all connection metadata, putting fingerprints in RFID passports and lots more which limits freedom just by making people feel watched all the time. How they didn't consider that when they made him patron of the LinuxTag is beyond me, but a boycott is just not going to happen.

Re:Boycott schmoycott

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only should the boycott not happen, but perhaps if a couple hundred people arrived with shirts saying the same thing, perhaps a message would be heard! If many that attend hear him speak, they could talk in loud voices so he cannot be heard over the background noise. More is indicated here, not less!

Re:Boycott schmoycott

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a boycott would be exactly the right thing, but it is just not going to happen. At most only casual visitors would stay away. Anybody who goes there for a purpose other than interested browsing will not let this issue deter him.

Re:Boycott schmoycott

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not only pushing for fingerprint data to be stored in passports (that'll go live this coming November), but also for retention of said data plus image data at the councils' registry offices, for easy access by law enforcement on vaguely specified terms.

He's a paranoid kook - has every reason to, after having been stabbed by an attacker and being restricted to a wheelchair ever since. How they could put him in charge of the department of the Interior is beyond me. Even police and lawyers' professional organizations clearly say his plans cross the border.

I'd protest in a more subtle way on LinuxTag - Heise reported on the "Schaeuble is watching you" animated GIF gimmick a few weeks back. Had the face of Wolfgang Schaeuble (public domain image from Wikipedia) pop up at the bottom border of your web browser. Right now, I have an Xpenguins theme running on my screen that's modeled after that hack. Just needs a way of adding sound ("Ha! Terrorists!"), and it would be perfect for a presentation at LinuxTag.

    Michael

Won't even notice?

[Anonymous Coward]

is facing a massive boycott from open source enthusiasts in the country this year [...] and that Schaeuble probably won't even notice

Who ever notices boycotts from open source enthusiasts, anyway?

Re:Won't even notice?

[jcr]

What effect does a boycott from people who don't want to pay for anything have?

-jcr

Re:Won't even notice?

[megaditto]

Instead of boycotting stuff, why don't they take up a donation for a full-page add or a 30 second spot (assuming the Krauts have TV ads)?

Explaining to the public why this guy sucks (and perhaps even what Linux is) would be much better than cutting off your nose to spite your face, no?

Re:Won't even notice?

[murple]

Assuming the Krauts have TV ads)? We don't even have this newfangled thing you call TV.

Re:Won't even notice?

[cmbofh]

... 'cause that would require electricity.

Re:Won't even notice?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Stone Age' all the way!

Re:Won't even notice?

[damista]

The question should be: Which politician ever noticed it when people decided to boycot anything they do, say or attend?

Another question is: Which politician ever gave a toss about things being boycotted because of them?

Re:Won't even notice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, there are TV ads. But no one is noticing, since no-one is watching TV anymore. The US is not so developed yet, eh? ;-)

To give you an idea who this is

[Opportunist]

Wolfgang Schäuble had the "bright" idea to have the law enforcement in Germany develop a trojan and infect the computer of suspects (and he's pushing strongly to make the requirements to use it rather lenient), and is also one of the main pushers behind the recent law that connections via phone or internet have to be recorded (not the content, "only" the location of the participant (in case of cellphones), endpoints and so on, to identify who talked with whom, when and from where).

I can well understand why people wouldn't want to be in the same convention with him. Actually, I can't figure out why anyone would want to have him near, unless following the old saying "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer".

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[PopeRatzo]

Sometimes, despicable people will try to gain credibility by associating themselves with an honorable institution. We see it with radical Right Wingers in the US associating themselves with Jesus Christ even though old JC would probably have put his size 9 sandal up the crack of their asses.

Take this Falwell monster who just croaked. He had no problem rubbing bellies with death squads and dictators in Central and South America and apartheid leaders, and then turning around and acting holy at a prayer breakfast with Presidents who were too scared of his well-fed, smug and judgmental ass to throw him the fuck out like they should have. Did you see all the Republican presidential candidates falling over themselves trying to compare him to Ghandi and Martin Luther King?

I'm just guessing, but I've got a feeling that about 10 seconds after he died, he got the shock of his life when instead of seeing St. Peter, he met the dude with hooves. I'm hoping it was the South Park version of Satan, too.

If the Linux community boycotts LinuxTag, it's not going to hurt them one bit. In fact, standing up for what's right could make a lot of people take notice of them, especially with moral courage being in such short supply these days.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[Opportunist]

Falwell would have a fit when you compared him to Martin Luther King... Then again, who cares?

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[pizpot]

When Falwell died, and his brain stopped working, his consciousness ended. It ceased to be. If his thoughts were like music on a cassette tape, then the tape ended... and not just to silence, it stopped as if it never existed. No amount of faith in today's religion can change that, haha.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

When Falwell died, and his brain stopped working, his consciousness ended. It ceased to be. If his thoughts were like music on a cassette tape, then the tape ended... and not just to silence, it stopped as if it never existed. No amount of faith in today's religion can change that, haha.

To be fair and to hold to the principles of science we simply cannot say that with certainty. What you just did is the exact same thing all the religious people do, i.e. you made an absolute claim in the absence of conclusive evidence to support it.

We simply do not, at this point, understand the nature of consciousness. We theorize that it has similar properties to that of various computational systems and that the neuronal functions are reducible to programs which can be executed by Turing machines or some other well-defined automata, but we, at this point, cannot demonstrate that it is so.

For example, it is conceivable that some fundamental properties of matter/energy on quantum (or lower) level play a part in the phenomenon of consciousness by influencing (and possibly being influenced by) the electro-chemical processes within neurons. What if that is so? What if Everett's "multiple universe" theory (or some such like thing) combined with murky phenomena in some directly unobservable by physicists dimentions of space combine to play a direct role and we simply are not grasping the implications because we still lack appropriate explanatory models and/or apparatus? Remember that fundamental areas of quantum physics and the properties of space-time continuum are still largely a mistery, despite tremendous progress made so far.

Until more conclusive evidence comes in, i.e. for example we have managed to replicate a complete human brain in some other hardware and its functions and actions can be demonstrated to be precisely as those of a "living" one, you simply lack the empirical and theoretical foundations to make absolute claims of this nature.

That is why I am a "we have insufficient data" sort of an Agnostic. It is in my view the only scientifically honest position.

This of course in no way endorses any of the "mainstream" religions, which consist for the most part of, to put it diplomatically, loads of ridiculous donkey manure, lovingly shaped to entice the weak minded into slavery of one sort or another.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[Anonymous Coward]

You're basically clinging to the idea of Cartesian dualism but ascribing it to "quantum" instead. That's still not much of a sound theory.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[Threni]

> We theorize that it has similar properties to that of various computational systems and that the neuronal functions are
> reducible to programs which can be executed by Turing machines or some other well-defined automata, but we, at this point,
> cannot demonstrate that it is so.
> For example, it is conceivable that some fundamental properties of matter/energy on quantum (or lower) level play a part in the
> phenomenon of consciousness by influencing (and possibly being influenced by) the electro-chemical processes within neurons.

Yeah, I read Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" too! I sort of hoped, after ploughing through the whole thing, that he was going somewhere but it sort of all fell apart in the last chapter. Still, some interesting stuff in there.

> That is why I am a "we have insufficient data" sort of an Agnostic. It is in my view the only scientifically honest position.

Well, anything is possible, I suppose, but I don't think it's being dishonest to suggest that it's worth zero time whatsoever investigating, say, perpetual engines or time machines. There's nothing unscientific about being an atheist, as opposed to a mere agnostic, regarding those subjects.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[nanosquid]

That is why I am a "we have insufficient data" sort of an Agnostic. It is in my view the only scientifically honest position.

No, the scientifically honest position is to behave as if consciousness ends with physical death. That's because all other scientific hypotheses have been experimentally disproven. It's not certainty, but it's as close as rational humans ever get to certainty.

For example, it is conceivable that some fundamental properties of matter/energy on quantum (or lower) level play a part in the phenomenon of consciousness by influencing (and possibly being influenced by) the electro-chemical processes within neurons. What if that is so? What if Everett's "multiple universe" theory (or some such like thing) combined with murky phenomena in some directly unobservable by physicists dimentions of space combine to play a direct role and we simply are not grasping the implications because we still lack appropriate explanatory models and/or apparatus? Remember that fundamental areas of quantum physics and the properties of space-time continuum are still largely a mistery, despite tremendous progress made so far.

All those speculations fall into two categories: those that are unobservable in principle (so they are not part of physical reality) and those that have no bearing on the continuation of consciousness after death.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[messner_007]

You're basically clinging to the idea of Cartesian dualism but ascribing it to "quantum" instead. That's still not much of a sound theory.

As Alain Badiou nicely describes .... this dualism shit puts you right in the middle of Sophism.

So he is not really a dualist, he is staying with agnosticism amd that is good. Even better would be if he would go after Baiou ...

Be a clever agnostic: go after Badiou ;)

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[dvice_null]

> To be fair and to hold to the principles of science we simply cannot say that with certainty.

The same goes for unicorns, monsters and of course the famours, greator of all like, the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mons ter

That is why the science world doesn't bulieve in anything, where we don't have scientific proofs. They COULD exist, but they don't, untill proven so.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[SiChemist]

So you would be an "insufficient data" sort of agnostic if I were to propose that an invisible 1000ft intelligent purple dinosaur visited people after they died and transported them to a world of sappy children's songs? In general, scientists view any extraordinary claim that has absolutely no supporting evidence with a great deal of skepticism. Most people who claim agnosticism in the same manner as yourself are really "weak atheists".

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[jez9999]

Until more conclusive evidence comes in, i.e. for example we have managed to replicate a complete human brain in some other hardware and its functions and actions can be demonstrated to be precisely as those of a "living" one, you simply lack the empirical and theoretical foundations to make absolute claims of this nature.

Even then, you can never prove (as far as I can see) that your fake brain has 'true' sentience. Humans could have 'souls' which are undetectable with our senses, and cannot be created artificially. COULD.

That is why I am a "we have insufficient data" sort of an Agnostic.

What other sort is there?

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

That's because all other scientific hypotheses have been experimentally disproven.

Really? How so? You are implying that absence of evidence is equivalent to the evidence of absence. Our knowledge is simply too weak in the areas of sub-atomic structure of the Universe to be able to make such claims with certainty, yet you do. What you are exhibiting is a form of faith.

It's not certainty, but it's as close as rational humans ever get to certainty.

Could you again elaborate where does this in-depth understanding of quantum phenomena, not possesed by mere scientists, come from?

All those speculations fall into two categories: those that are unobservable in principle (so they are not part of physical reality) and those that have no bearing on the continuation of consciousness after death.

Untrue. There are possibilities of interaction of matter/energy forms in extra-dimentional spaces as prescribed by some of the theoretical physics constructs (such as some forms of the string theory) which could infuence/be-influenced by the function of systems composed of matter/energy (such as the brain) and which could persist in some form in those dimentions should these systems be destroyed in our mundane 3 dimentions of space-time. Such interactions can be experimentally proven and theoretical models can be constructed, providing we have sufficient theoretical foundations and apparatus which is capable of detecting (even indirectly) such interactions. And that is only one of the possibilities.

What disturbs me is that many people today exibit the absolute certainty eqivalent to that of "knowing" that Newtonian physics is 100% correct and unchallengeable, while experimental evidence abounds that it is vastly incomplete. The term for that is "hubris".

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[jez9999]

Most people who claim agnosticism in the same manner as yourself are really "weak atheists".

No. Wikipedia defines that as someone who has "not thought about belief in gods; such an individual is implicitly without a belief in gods." That sounds a lot like someone who "believes there are no gods", which is not the same as an agnostic. We believe in the possibility of god(s). The word 'agnostic' is far better, and anyway when you use the word 'atheist', people always assume you're talking about explicit atheism anyway.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The same goes for unicorns, monsters and of course the famours, greator of all like, the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mons ter

Incorrect. Unlike any of those we do have evidence that our understanding of quantum phenomena is vastly incomplete. We also know that quantum phenomena play a key role in electro-chemical reactions which in turn play a key role in the operation of neurons. So dismissing avenues of investigation out of hand is not equivalent here to dismissing fantastic creations of which there is zero empirical evidence.

That is why the science world doesn't bulieve in anything, where we don't have scientific proofs. They COULD exist, but they don't, untill proven so.

Again, some of the theoretical quantum physics constructs (such as the string theory) invite certain possible interpetations, which (unlike Unicorns and the like) can be experimentally verified. Since in this case we not only lack the evidence but also a sufficient model which explains all of the observable so far phenomena, this is wholly unlike that of pretending that exotic creations exist in, pretty much, the realm of Newtonian physics and traditional biology, for which we do have comprehensive and experimentally verified models. You are talking apples and oranges.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

So you would be an "insufficient data" sort of agnostic if I were to propose that an invisible 1000ft intelligent purple dinosaur visited people after they died and transported them to a world of sappy children's songs?

Not at all. Unless you provide a method of verifying that supposition then it is simply a statement of faith.

What I am describing are possibilities of experimentally verifiable phenomena, within the framework of quantum physics models.

In general, scientists view any extraordinary claim that has absolutely no supporting evidence with a great deal of skepticism.

Again, I am not insisting on any particular theory, and I am acknowledging the possibility of any of the ones I mentioned being all wrong. We are simply, at this point, are not in a position to make an absolute claim about something which we do not have sufficient theoretical and experimental data for. That is science: if we do not have a model and we do not have sufficient data we do not make bold assertions about things being one way or another.

The GP on the other hand is making an absolute statement for which he cannot provide evidence even though tests (one of which I demonstrated) are yet to be performed to determine the validity of his assertion. That is not science but a stetement of faith, very much as your 1000ft pink dinosaur.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Even then, you can never prove (as far as I can see) that your fake brain has 'true' sentience. Humans could have 'souls' which are undetectable with our senses, and cannot be created artificially. COULD.

Again, unless someone constructs a theoretical framework and a set of tests to run to determine if that is so, then such a claim would no longer be sicence but faith. What I described can be tested and we do know that our knowledge of quantum phenomena is woefully incomplete. It is simply too early in this game to be making such bold assertions, such as the GP did. He simply treated this area of inquiry as if it were falling in the realm of deterministic, Newtonian, large scale physics. But it does not.

What other sort is there?

At some point in time enough evidence is gathered to construct models, which, even if limited in scope, can be used to explain and predict phenomena under investigation. At that point the evidence becomes "sufficient" because these models are capable of extrapolating and predicting any future evidence within their reach.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[jez9999]

Are we not talking about belief in the supernatural here? How would such models help with that question? They might predict the natural universe with 100% accuracy, but that doesn't touch the supernatural universe (if any).

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Well, anything is possible, I suppose, but I don't think it's being dishonest to suggest that it's worth zero time whatsoever investigating, say, perpetual engines or time machines. There's nothing unscientific about being an atheist, as opposed to a mere agnostic, regarding those subjects.

I see the "strong" Atheists as those believers in absolute certainty of 100% accuracy of Newtonian physics, before Einstein came along. The situation is very analogous. Even though unexplainable by the Newtonian model experimental evidence abounds, they are merrily going about talking about 100% deterministic Universe and impossiblity of "free will" since everything is pre-determined by the clockwork-like deterministic operation of the world, and they are sure of it because of this nice, complete and unchallengable model Mr. Newton created. That unexplainable evidence? Phht, its on the fringe of the model, dealing with itsy-bitsy small things, and thus of no great import, certainly!

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Are we not talking about belief in the supernatural here? How would such models help with that question? They might predict the natural universe with 100% accuracy, but that doesn't touch the supernatural universe (if any).

Not at all. If it can be tested and models can be constructed, it by definition ceases to be "supernatural". What it could be called is "extra-dimentional" as in taking place in dimentions outside of the "three plus time" vectors of space-time we are so familiar with. The same is applicable for example to the string theory, some froms of which require 10 dimentions to function. There are many cosmological theories which also involve weakly interacting (through gravity for example) multiple dimentions.

The key is the word "interaction". If there is interaction, then it can be tested for. If there is none, or by definition it is claimed to be untestable, then the point is moot and the thing indeed falls into the realm of "supernatural" and faith.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[jez9999]

But I don't really see how you can get to a point where, no matter how sophisticated the model, you can't say, "but God might still exist."

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

But I don't really see how you can get to a point where, no matter how sophisticated the model, you can't say, "but God might still exist."

The problem I see is with my using the word "Agnostic". The definition of which is forced upon us by Theists, rather then flowing from the logical conlusions of science. By saying "Agnostic" I do not mean "in respect to exsitence of God" exclusively, but also in respect to other aspects of our existence which the Theists have appropriated. In this particular case we are discussing some possible aspects of the nature of consciousness and a possibility that it might, in some form, be independent from the our three dimentional view of space-time. This by no means implies the existence of God or .. lack of thereof.

I see the very definitions of "God" by Theists to be rather problematic. What does the term "God" stand for, really? A bearded dude in sandals? Or perhaps the Universe itself can be classified as "God"? Or perheaps the question itself is invalid and asking "Does God exist?" is an equivalent to asking "How cruel is colour blue?". Gramatically correct, but devoid of logical meaning.

And the reason that I classify myself as "Agnostic" is because we do not have an answer to some of these questions yet. We know for example that information and computations on that information are somehow related to consciousness. But what is information, really? We do not even grasp that completely!

What I find however to be rather exceedingly unlikely is the Bearded Dude scenario, as it contains so many laughable internal inconsistencies that ... it can only serve deluded zealots as an excuse to mass murder other deluded zealots over the colour of those sandals.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[PopeRatzo]

I think what you are doing, IgnoramusMaximus, is devising a hope for a theory based on the emotional rejection of the notion that you will cease to exist upon your death. It's not even a theory, it's the seed of a hope for a possibility that there might be some loophole that will allow you to continue to exist after you turn to dust.

I can understand the motivation, but we can't throw out our observations based upon a wish.

There are possibilities of interaction of matter/energy forms in extra-dimentional spaces as prescribed by some of the theoretical physics constructs (such as some forms of the string theory) which could infuence/be-influenced by the function of systems composed of matter/energy (such as the brain) and which could persist in some form in those dimentions should these systems be destroyed in our mundane 3 dimentions of space-time. Such interactions can be experimentally proven and theoretical models can be constructed, providing we have sufficient theoretical foundations and apparatus which is capable of detecting (even indirectly) such interactions. And that is only one of the possibilities.

Another "possibility" is that we'll all get whooshed up to the clouds upon our death and meet St. Peter and angels with harps and if we are judged to have not broken too many of the rules, we'll be allowed to live in a "paradise" that will consist of us gazing upon the face of our Creator (no Xbox 360?). Either that or we'll be sent to suffer eternally in torturous fire (but He loves us!).

Despite our fears of death, I suspect that most of us, down deep, can recognize a fairy tale, when we hear one.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I think what you are doing, IgnoramusMaximus, is devising a hope for a theory based on the emotional rejection of the notion that you will cease to exist upon your death. It's not even a theory, it's the seed of a hope for a possibility that there might be some loophole that will allow you to continue to exist after you turn to dust. I can understand the motivation, but we can't throw out our observations based upon a wish.

No, I simply insist on following the tenets of empirical science to their logical conclusions, wherever they might lead.

What annoys me in particular is that some people latch onto whatever current models are being offered by science and go "Thats it! This time, for SURE, there is nothing more to it!". Which inevietably leads to creation of dogma, in no way different from that created by religious zealots. Particular examples of this can be seen in various "definitive" cosmologies, based upon Newtonian model, which claimed that the Universe is strictly deterministic, akin to a clockwork mechanism. I have a strong feeling that you would be a subscriber to that (quite popular at the time) worldview should you be living at that stage if scientific history.

I also sense that some have a vested ideological interest in not following the experimental evidence in some directions as it grates with their pre-determined opinions. I on the other hand simply refuse to jump to absolutist conclusions where the evidence is far from sufficient to warrant so.

Another "possibility" is that we'll all get whooshed up to the clouds upon our death and meet St. Peter and angels with harps and if we are judged to have not broken too many of the rules, we'll be allowed to live in a "paradise" that will consist of us gazing upon the face of our Creator (no Xbox 360?). Either that or we'll be sent to suffer eternally in torturous fire (but He loves us!).

That "possiblity" is a) scientifically untestable and thus outside of the realm of science and b) the "theory" involving a dude named St. Peter is so internally inconsistent as to guarantee its falsity.

Despite our fears of death, I suspect that most of us, down deep, can recognize a fairy tale, when we hear one.

There are many possible implications of sentience. One is that indeed there is no extra-dimentional quantum level entanglement present of any sort and what you claim is true. Some other involve existence of some sort of informational state outside of our three dimentional space time, ranging anywhere from a few bits to a complete mirror of the state of one's mind. What could happen to such a cluster of information is unknown and by no means implies Pearly Gates ... or Allah and 72 virgins ... or Hindu re-incarnation. What I am pointing out that we simply do not have anything approaching sufficient information to say, with any certainty (never you mind an absolute one), that no extra-dimentional state entanglements of any sort exist and given our miniscule knowledge of the quantum phenomena, the properties of space-time continuum and the very nature of information (and thus consciousness), making absolute pronouncements represents the essence of hubris and is the very anathema to science.

In this area, science simply does not have sufficient (yet) reach, a state of affairs similar to that of the cosmology before the invention of a telescope. A significant breakthrough, either experimental or theoretical, can change all that and either close the possibility of such extra-dimentional entanglements or reinforce it.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[Anonymous Coward]

"(not the content, "only" the location of the participant (in case of cellphones), endpoints and so on, to identify who talked with whom, when and from where)."

We call this 'metadata' and its something from EU. There are many more assholes pro that BS (Eureopean Data Retention act or what it called).

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[Capsaicin]

That is why I am a "we have insufficient data" sort of an Agnostic. It is in my view the only scientifically honest position.

The problem with this is that it privileges the concept 'God' over 'Zorsdix' or any other of the inifite possible postulated ideas, whose corporeal existence lacks any supporting evidence. In fact the honest scientific position is simply to recognise that the concept of 'God' makes no more sense than the idea that the room you are sitting in is filled with undetectable flying fish (ie both are logically possible, but lack empirical foundation). Since there is zero evidence for either proposition, from a scientific position neither warrants more than infinitesimal attention.

We simply do not, at this point, understand the nature of consciousness. We theorize that it has similar properties to that of various computational systems and that the neuronal functions are reducible to programs which can be executed by Turing machines or some other well-defined automata, but we, at this point, cannot demonstrate that it is so.

Theorise all you want. What we do recognise is that evidence of (on-going) human consciousness has never been found absent a living human body. We also note from personal experience, that when our brain is switched off (as under general anasthetic -- a state most closely resembling the brain's position post mortem), we simply experience no consciousness at all, not even a sense of time having passed. Nor do sane people report any ante-natal memories.

In other words, we have good evidence (both from introspection and by observation of other people), that human consciousness does exist in alive and alert humans, no evidence at all that it exists outside of alive and alert humans, and some evidence that it ceases to occur when the brain no longer functions. The evidence points towards the conclusion that mind ends with the death of the brain that gives rise to said mind. All else is merely unsubstantiated conjecture.

Whether or not you want to postulate that human consciousness can accuratly be described in CS terms is a completely separate issue.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[nanosquid]

Really? How so? You are implying that absence of evidence is equivalent to the evidence of absence.

No, I'm not.

What disturbs me is that many people today exibit the absolute certainty

I said "it's not certainty".

eqivalent to that of "knowing" that Newtonian physics is 100% correct and unchallengeable

When Newtonian physics was challenged, people accepted the new theory fairly quickly once there were experiments to support it.

while experimental evidence abounds that it is vastly incomplete

None of the areas in which physics is incomplete have ever been shown experimentally to have any effect on consciousness. Simply put, a whack on the head or a crack pipe have been shown to affect your consciousness, quantum entanglement and extra dimensions have not.

Untrue. There are possibilities of interaction of matter/energy forms in extra-dimentional spaces

No, there are no such "possibilities" in known physics. Even completely wacky theories of consciousness involving quantum effects still tie consciousness to the physical substrate of the brain and have no mechanism by which it could survive destruction of the brain. If you want to challenge current mainstream theory of brain function, you need a plausible hypothesis plus actual experiments.

About the only mechanism that might give you consciousness after death is the simulation argument, but that is not physics.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[karolo]

Yep, as someone very dear to me usually says, the only downside of there not being an afterlife is that you can't go Ha Ha! to the religious twats when you get there. Then again, another shame of it is that people like GWB and TB will never get their comeuppance.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The problem with this is that it privileges the concept 'God' over 'Zorsdix' or any other of the inifite possible postulated ideas, whose corporeal existence lacks any supporting evidence. In fact the honest scientific position is simply to recognise that the concept of 'God' makes no more sense than the idea that the room you are sitting in is filled with undetectable flying fish (ie both are logically possible, but lack empirical foundation). Since there is zero evidence for either proposition, from a scientific position neither warrants more than infinitesimal attention.

As I indicated to another poster, you are latching on to the aspect of the word "Agnostic" which is focused on by Theists, that is existence of an entity which can be termed "God", while there are many other aspects of existence which lack any plausible scientific explanation so far, one of which is the topic of conversation. Speaking of "God" however, the first step is to try to define what that means, and this alone is problematic. Some, for example, would consider the Universe itself to be such an entity. Some religions do not require a concept of "God" at all. Yet we do not even know if the question itself is valid, and asking "Is there a God (or gods)" might be akin to asking "is integer number 7 rich?". Gramatically correct but devoid of logical meaning.

So in this sense you are correct, these questions are more phillosphical then scientific as we do not have any means of conducting an investigation into the matter.

What we do recognise is that evidence of (on-going) human consciousness has never been found absent a living human body. We also note from personal experience, that when our brain is switched off (as under general anasthetic -- a state most closely resembling the brain's position post mortem), we simply experience no consciousness at all, not even a sense of time having passed. Nor do sane people report any ante-natal memories.

This alone is insufficient. If some sort of entanglement exists, it is possible that whatever the extra dimentional particles or what not are entangled would only be de-coupled upon some drastic changes of quantum state of the proteins in the neurons they are coupled with, i.e. their decomposition. And that is only one of the possibilities, other dealing with questions about the properties of information itself which is stored in those synapses and which we have a very poor grasp of. We for example do not know if the information in which we swim with such abandon is not in itself a representation of some additional dimentions of the Universe. Or would you care to explain, comprehensively, the nature of information itself?

In other words, we have good evidence (both from introspection and by observation of other people), that human consciousness does exist in alive and alert humans, no evidence at all that it exists outside of alive and alert humans, and some evidence that it ceases to occur when the brain no longer functions. The evidence points towards the conclusion that mind ends with the death of the brain that gives rise to said mind. All else is merely unsubstantiated conjecture.

You have commited a logical error here, out of ideological bias, by claiming "some evidence" (which we actually have exactly none of) and coupling it with "All else is merely unsubstantiated conjecture". Our evidence of lack (or existence) of any such possible entanglements with extra-dimentional states is, to say the least, miniscule as is our understanding of quantum physics and the nature of information. We are very much like biology researchers before the invention of the microsocpe and thus unaware of existence of cellular structures. And yet here you are, making bold pronouncements about the nature of heredity and disease, snickering about all those who go about our lack of understanding of affairs as being prone to "unsubstantiated conjecture".

D

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

When Newtonian physics was challenged, people accepted the new theory fairly quickly once there were experiments to support it.

This situation is not equivalent. I am not proposing that one particular alternative theory is correct, only that the present model is incomplete and thus not capable of explaining the phenomena in question. In the Newtonian model scenario I would be simply pointing out that there are some experiments which are unexplained by the model (as are many quantum effects at present in our current models), and some which contradict it, and I would be postulating some possible explanations and you would be going "No, there are no such "possibilities" in known physics.", with the implication that you already know everything there is to know about the matter.

None of the areas in which physics is incomplete have ever been shown experimentally to have any effect on consciousness. Simply put, a whack on the head or a crack pipe have been shown to affect your consciousness, quantum entanglement and extra dimensions have not.

You must be kidding. Many of the cellular processes are occuring in quantum level and our brains are composed of those very cells.

No, there are no such "possibilities" in known physics. Even completely wacky theories of consciousness involving quantum effects still tie consciousness to the physical substrate of the brain and have no mechanism by which it could survive destruction of the brain. If you want to challenge current mainstream theory of brain function, you need a plausible hypothesis plus actual experiments.

That is not true. Given our state of knowledge, you are not in any position to even begin determining which theories of consciounsess are "wacky" and which are not, and yet you do, because your immutable opinion has already substituted any reason in this area, even though our undestanding of the nature of consciousness (and infromation in general) is laughable, to say the least.

And no, there is no "mainstream" theory of brain function, only a very crude view of some neuronal functions. And then we have attempts at explaining, at a much higher level, of some fragmentary, peripheral aspects of information processing in some parts of the brain. That's it for the "mainstream theory".

Even if quantum entanglements do not exist with any other dimentions, then we are still left with our lack of understanding of the nature and essence of information. What if information itself is that kind of entanglement? Or could you comprehensively explain the nature of information? I, and I am sure the Nobel committee too, would like to hear that one.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[SiChemist]

It's a purple dinosaur! :-)

That minor mistake aside, it sounds like your argument is simple quantum mechanical straw grasping. To say that since our knowledge of consciousness is incomplete, we can't make any pronouncements about the world we inhabit is nonsensical. We have exactly zero evidence that consciousness continues after death (and plenty of evidence that it doesn't) and yet you cling to the barest thread of possibility that everyone is wrong and that more research will prove you're immortal. I wouldn't bet on it.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[SiChemist]

The Atheism entry in Wikipedia has this assertion:

Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.
Found here

By that criterion, my assertion is absolutely correct. However, that is not the source of my original comment. I based my opinion on some of the ideas presented by Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion" which crystallized my understanding of atheism. There's an interesting Q and A session linked to this Digg page.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[PopeRatzo]

What annoys me in particular is that some people latch onto whatever current models are being offered by science and go "Thats it! This time, for SURE, there is nothing more to it!". Which inevietably leads to creation of dogma, in no way different from that created by religious zealot

My friend, be very careful of buying into this (currently popular) meme that science has become "like religion", and thus has no basis in fact. It's an idea that's being spread by the very powerful in order to keep people ignorant. You can hear it every day when Rush Limbaugh or some other right-wing factotum talks about microbiology (stem cell research) or climatology (global warming).

It's false, it's dangerous, and having read several pages worth of your previous comments, beneath you.

Of course I would like to believe that some quantum hocus-pocus is going to keep my consciousness going after my body has turned to dust. The idea that my life can continue eternally, free of the pain and discomfort of the mortal coil is very appealing but there's not even enough evidence to say it might be possible. The models of quantum physics and string theory aren't anywhere near mature enough to even suggest that it might be worth considering.

That's not to say further developments couldn't come along that could point in that direction, but we're not anywhere close to that yet.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

To say that since our knowledge of consciousness is incomplete, we can't make any pronouncements about the world we inhabit is nonsensical.

This is a strawan. The pronouncements you are making are not about "the world we inhabit" but specifically about the very nature of consciousness, knowledge of which even you admit is very incomplete. Or more precisely: "miniscule".

We have exactly zero evidence that consciousness continues after death (and plenty of evidence that it doesn't) and yet you cling to the barest thread of possibility that everyone is wrong and that more research will prove you're immortal.

We actually have exactly no evidence that consciousness (or parts of thereof, or some other consciousness related phenomena) cease after death, because we have no method, apparatus or theoretical foundations to determine if it is so, as we do not understand the nature of consciousness and thus have no means of constructing them. Never you mind "plenty" evidence. This is of course a classic example of jumping to unwarranted conculsions based on ones deep-felt opinion ... the colloquial term for which is: "faith".

At this point no evidence exists either for or against, a state of affairs which can only invite exactly one scientifically honest opinion: "We do not know, further reasearch is necessary". For example, construct truly sentient machinery and conduct a number of carefuly designed experiments with it and then you will be one step closer to disproving such possibility of extra-dimentional entanglements. Until then, stop making absolute claims based on your gut feelings, a.k.a. faith.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

My friend, be very careful of buying into this (currently popular) meme that science has become "like religion", and thus has no basis in fact

That is not the problem. Science itself is not at fault here, but those who claim to adhere to scientific principles only to turn around and start making "scientific", absolute pronouncements based on flimsy or non-existant evidence are. Science is a system of gathering and processing knowledge and as such is, ultimately, immune to vagaries of politics and ideology, although it sometimes takes an inordinate amount of time for it get itself sorted out. That does not stop some people however from going beyond what science describes in its models based on empirical evidence and simply jump to wild conclusions based on their gut feelings, following which they become very combative if someone points out to them that their absolute assertions are unsubstantiated.

This process has been repeated in the scientific community many times, at times halting completely the progress of some discipline for a very long time.

But science is very resiliant and I have no doubt that no matter how many of these ideologues get involved in this, eventually even the most dogmatic and popular at the time but incorrect worldviews must fall under the assault of incontrovertible evidence and be replaced by updated ones.

In other words, please do not confuse science itself with those who demand unquestioning respect for their wild assertions by claiming them to be based on some famous (but in fact only remotely connected) scientific model of some aspect of the Universe. I keep bringing Newton and the "clockwork Universe cosmology" as an example because it demonstrates such folly quite admirably.

The models of quantum physics and string theory aren't anywhere near mature enough to even suggest that it might be worth considering.

My point is that this statement cuts both ways. Given our miniscule knowledge of the quantum theory, the nature of consciousness and the nature of information, we are not in a position to discard out of hand any theory which is plausible in some way within the wide field of possibilities open at this point. If new experimental evidence comes in, or our understanding improves, the range of possibilities will narrow considerably, and it might as well be that it will be conclusively demonstrated that no entanglements of any kind are possible. But it is very dishonest and at the sime time suspiciously stinking of religious zeal to be making absoulute pronouncements in such poorly understood field of inquiry, so early in the game.

That's not to say further developments couldn't come along that could point in that direction, but we're not anywhere close to that yet.

And that is the whole point. But the original poster and some of my sparring partners in this thread would like to short-circuit this process and simply jump to a conclusion they believe foregone, based simply on their feelings about the matter.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[nanosquid]

only that the present model is incomplete and thus not capable of explaining the phenomena in question.

Every scientific theory is incomplete, and no scientific theory is capable of explaining every phenomenon. That's the nature of scientific theories. Incompleteness doesn't prevent scientific theories from making valid predictions.

Many of the cellular processes are occuring in quantum level and our brains are composed of those very cells.

That's true of every physical system. For example, a Pentium is composed of transistors that operate based on quantum mechanical effects, but the Pentium as a whole behaves like a classical system. What is relevant is what I stated: none of the areas in which physics is incomplete have ever been shown experimentally to have any effect on consciousness.

Or could you comprehensively explain the nature of information

Shannon did.

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Every scientific theory is incomplete, and no scientific theory is capable of explaining every phenomenon. That's the nature of scientific theories. Incompleteness doesn't prevent scientific theories from making valid predictions

Not in the areas in which they are incomplete though. The Newtonian model falls apart completely at the quantum level, or at speeds near the speed of light.

For example, a Pentium is composed of transistors that operate based on quantum mechanical effects, but the Pentium as a whole behaves like a classical system.

What is true of a Pentium computer, which uses essentially a statistical average of a large number of quantum effects in each semiconductor juncture is not true of the cellular mechanisms. Each cell in our brain is roughly equivalent in complexity to a rather sophisticated microcontroller, one whole orders of magnitude smaller then the smallest equivalent integrated circuit we can manufacture, and subsequently the scale of the processes involved is orders of magnitude smaller. Where in a Pentium chip tens of billions of electrons flow in torrents in each junction and their effects are cumulative, in cellular processes it is possible that a single protein pays a pivotal trigger role and thus a single set of atomic interactions does. At that scale quantum effects become quite pronounced. You are desperately trying to compare phenomena on vastly different scales, akin to pretending that because large-scale, macroscopic properties cause water to flow in rivers then the same mechanism governs individual molecules of the said water in interaction with other molecules of other materials. The behaviours are so different that completely different areas of science have been constructed to investigate them, one being fluid dynamics and the other physical chemistry.

What is relevant is what I stated: none of the areas in which physics is incomplete have ever been shown experimentally to have any effect on consciousness.

And I keep telling you that because of the nature of the cellular processes, there exists a very plausible theoretical possibility of non-deterministic, quantum-level properties of matter and energy playing a pivotal role in operation of neurons. The fact that we at this point lack the apparatus to conduct appropriate experiments on that scale in that context does not automatically, out of hand, warrant an exclusion of these possibilites in absence of our understanding of processes involved. To do so smacks of ideological prejudice.

Just because we cannot directly detect the "dark matter" it does not prevent astronomers from speculating about its existence based solely on certain unexplained gaps in their models of the expansion of the Universe, yet in the case of cellular processes our models are far less complete than those of the astronomers and thus allow a far wider range of untested possibilites. You are on the other hand in a position of claiming, with absolute certainty, that no such thing as "dark matter" exists, because you do not like its implications and your gut feeling tells you that it "must" be some "other" explanation, more to your liking, even though the astronomical model is clearly incomplete and does not warrant such claims. While you are entitled to an opinion in an unexplored area, you are not entitled to make absolute pronouncements about it, as you are in no position to invalidate other theories, until more evidence comes in.

Shannon did.

No he did not. He merely developed a model to account for some of the more easily understood properties of information. At no point in time he attempted to comprehensicely explain what information is and how it relates to consciousness, or how its transmission to an "observer" is purported to explain the outcomes of some experiments involving quantum phenomena. His theory simply makes some axiomatic definitions and m

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[Capsaicin]

As I indicated to another poster, you are latching on to the aspect of the word "Agnostic" which is focused on by Theists, that is existence of an entity which can be termed "God", while there are many other aspects of existence which lack any plausible scientific explanation so far, one of which is the topic of conversation.

Fair enough, however, given that the unmarked case of the word 'agnostic' deals with belief in God, we were probably entitled to make such a presumption. So you didn't want to talk about god.

Speaking of "God" however ...

No lets not speak of God, after all my point in this regard was that this concept was culturally privileged over all other possible, but unsubstantiable, entities. Let's speak instead about the possible influx of undetectable flying fish into your room. What could they possibly eat? Is it true that they always bear down on any floating objects in the room pushing them towards the floor? Do they have colour, even though we can't see them? Why we could go on for hours talking about stuff that possibly exists, but for which we have no evidence. Unless it happens to be your pet concept (say 'extra dimentional entanglement), it can be quite tedious. And it certainly lacks any scientific validity. So maybe we should talk about that priviledge possible entity God, after all we can have fun with that.

Yet we do not even know if the question itself is valid, and asking "Is there a God (or gods)" might be akin to asking "is integer number 7 rich?".

The technical term for that is a "category error," following Gilber Ryle, which segues nicely into this... I'm not even sure I understand the question "is there a God," or "does God exist." Existence usually denotes corporeality, so what could 'exist' mean when applied to an entity which by definition has no corporeal form?

What we do recognise is that evidence of (on-going) human consciousness has never been found absent a living human body. We also note from personal experience, that when our brain is switched off (as under general anasthetic -- a state most closely resembling the brain's position post mortem), we simply experience no consciousness at all, not even a sense of time having passed. Nor do sane people report any ante-natal memories.

This alone is insufficient. ...

Sufficient for what? This isn't a criminal trial, the burden of proof isn't "beyond all reasonable doubt," we're working with the "the balanceof probabilities" here. Doubt is not the unqualified virtue you apparently believe it to be.

... If some sort of entanglement exists, it is possible that whatever the extra dimentional particles or what not are entangled would only be de-coupled upon some drastic changes of quantum state of the proteins in the neurons they are coupled with, i.e. their decomposition. And that is only one of the possibilities ...

Sure it's possible, so what? Mere possibility isn't all that interesting.

You have commited a logical error here, out of ideological bias, by claiming "some evidence" (which we actually have exactly none of) and coupling it with "All else is merely unsubstantiated conjecture".

Which particular ideological bias are we talking about here (or is this mere name calling)? There is no logical error in drawing a dichotomy between possibilities which are substantiated by evidence, and those which are not. However, the reason you believe there is nicely demonstrates the error into which you have fallen. So lets take it apart :

Our evidence of lack (or existence) of any such possible entanglements with extra-dimentional states is, to say the least, miniscule ...

Evidence of a lack of any particular possibility?! Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio is more than a merely arbitrary rule of logical discourse

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[IgnoramusMaximus]

No lets not speak of God, after all my point in this regard was that this concept was culturally privileged over all other possible, but unsubstantiable, entities. Let's speak instead about the possible influx of undetectable flying fish into your room. What could they possibly eat? Is it true that they always bear down on any floating objects in the room pushing them towards the floor? Do they have colour, even though we can't see them? Why we could go on for hours talking about stuff that possibly exists, but for which we have no evidence. Unless it happens to be your pet concept (say 'extra dimentional entanglement), it can be quite tedious. And it certainly lacks any scientific validity. So maybe we should talk about that priviledge possible entity God, after all we can have fun with that.

While it can be amusing to do that, I would like to point out that by your very definition those flying fish, and the forms of "God" you mentioned, are undetectable. Thus completely beyond the reach of science. This is of course rather amusing coming from someone who then proceeds to try to lecture me on my "lack of grasp of science".

Existence usually denotes corporeality, so what could 'exist' mean when applied to an entity which by definition has no corporeal form?

Non necessarily. One definition of "God" postulates that the Universe itself is in some way sentient and it is he/she/it i.e. "God". That is the most "corporal" form imaginable for any entity.

Sufficient for what? This isn't a criminal trial, the burden of proof isn't "beyond all reasonable doubt," we're working with the "the balanceof probabilities" here. Doubt is not the unqualified virtue you apparently believe it to be.

Insufficient for you, of course, to be making absolute pronouncements of any sort and thus removing any pretense of your actually believing in the concept of "the balanced probabilities" you claim so dear to you.

Sure it's possible, so what? Mere possibility isn't all that interesting.

Quantum level indeterministic interference is not only possible, but plausible, given the nature and scale of the cellular processes. And that by itself makes it interesting.

Evidence of a lack of any particular possibility?! Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio is more than a merely arbitrary rule of logical discourse! At first I though this was just a slip on your part, but on reflection this putting of the horse before the logical cart may lie at the root of your misthinking.

Again, your error lies in these, increasingly desparate it seems, attempts at trying to pin on me some sort of ulterior desire to "prove" that quantum entanglements I mentioned exist with certainty. At no point did I claim that I posses sufficient evidence to be attempting such proof, only that such a theory is scientifically (at this point) plausible and that it cannot be discarded out of hand based simply on your gut feelings about it, which you keep attempting, desipte professing to believe in the tenets of science. The possiblity I keep mentioning is both plausible and testable and thus firmly within the realm of science.

What I said was that theories lacking any evidence are unsubstantiated conjecture and should not be preferred to theories for which at least some evidence exists.

Then I presume you are going to rail against astronomers next, who had precisely zero empirical evidence for the so called "dark matter", only unexplained gaps in their incomplete models. Yet that was sufficient to postulate a wide range of plausible explanations all the way from the so-called "MACHO" objects to the so-called "dark matter". Following which they attempted to gather evidence to discern which of these wildly different possibilities is in fact the case. Do, by all means, go lecture them on their errant, unscientific ways as th

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Goodness gracious! You've gone off the deep-end on a rant about the passing away of the great and much beloved, Jerry Falwell. If I had mod points I would give you a big Off-topic rating and if I was your mother, I would smack your mouth for slandering a man whom only just recently passed away. His Wikipedia entry reads like a deliberate attempt of character assassination, complete with several quotes taken out of context. You should've just linked back to the fake Wikipedia entry, from which you apparently stole your facts. I admired the man, he didn't bow down to the elitists in the media circus and he was without a doubt, smarter than you. You speak of moral courage, but fail to acknowledge the one who encouraged millions to understand what moral courage means. How nice of you to attack a man while his family and friends are still in mourning.

Yep. That makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no point being politically active if the target of your activism probably won't even notice. May as well just put up with it and get on with your life.

Wrong.

Anyone with money invested in the event will notice, and I'm sure the backlash from the grass roots users will convince them they should rethink their associations in future. seeing they are the people with the money, they are the only people who can make the Minister notice.

Figures in power are directly unreachable to the common man, but we can impact on them indirectly.

From the linux community to the interior minister:
Nuts!

Re:Yep. That makes perfect sense.

[messner_007]

I don't want to show up on such an event. I am visiting LinuxTag ever year. I always come with my car: 1000 km in one way. But I love it. It used to be first class event.

This year, I wont come. People say, "don't be disturbed by this shithead". Behave as normally. But this wont go for me. When something stinks, then it stinks. You can wear very nice shoes, good trouses and beutifull tie. But when your shirt stinks, you feel miserablly.

And this guy stinks.

TFA: Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble, Federal Minister of the Interior, took over the patronage over the LinuxTag 2007. After publication of this message we received many reactions, also among them some, which analyze the positions of the Federal Minister critically about "electronic monitoring" and "citizen rights".We welcome explicitly a critical argument with these topics, do not see these however not in the direct focus of our meeting. The goal of the LinuxTag registered association is it to promote free software. This goal is very important to us and our main objective.

You are joking. "electronic monitoring" and "citizen rights" have nothing to do with open source on LinuxTag ??? I will not show up on this event !

The LinuxTag registered association holds the opinion that by the consistent employment by suitor software in the public administration a large contribution for the transparency of the administrative action could be created. And for this the respective Federal Minister of the Interior is an important partner, without which successes would not have been possible in the past.

Linux tag has been successfull also without the goverment

Oh wait...

[Howitzer86]

I went ahead and read about this guy and his party. My first thought was "hey, he doesn't seem to bad".

My second thought was, "Oh wait, I'm in America, I've been desensitized."

Re:Oh wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah really... feels more like being circumcised...

brought to you by eureka captcha

Re:Oh wait...

[mother_reincarnated]

I went ahead and read about this guy and his party also. Unlike you my first thought was 'the Christian Democratic Union'!? How f'd up is that !!!?!?!eleven!1!'

My second thought was, "at least I don't have to worry about that kind of crap here"

However we re-converge because my third thought was 'only in Germany could a man that sounds this boring be so controversial.' and my fourth was indeed "Oh wait, I'm in America, I've been desensitized."

Alles klar Herr Komisar?

Re:Oh wait...

[Yokaze]

> Christian Democratic Union [...] How f'd up is that [...] at least I don't have to worry about that kind of crap here

Contrary to the US, in Germany you can be elected to the most powerful office, without having to continously profess ones faith. In Germany 40-50% are agnostic/atheists compared to the U.S, where there are 3-9%.

Re:Oh wait...

[Ramtek]

The presumption of guilt until proven innocent is absurd but I have no problem with hard line positions (and suddenly neither do the french). The slashdot community acts as if all the other denizens of the planet are other slashdotters. A lot of them see things as simply as any right wing nut job. Conservative = bad is just as inaccurate as flaming lefty = good. The group think here astonishes me.

Re:Oh wait...

[VON-MAN]

The slashdot community acts as if all the other denizens of the planet are other slashdotters.

This might come as a shock for you...

The slashdot community _consists_ of other denizens of the planet. So when German held Linuxtag is in the news, German, and Belgium, and French, and Swiss, and Czech, and Danish, and Dutch, Linux using slashdotters with an interest in politics at least feel entitled to an opinion.

Now that's all that stuff you see around your post.

Wrong reaction

[ericferris]

That's just a politician who wants to generate PR by attending an event that contains lots of buzzwords ("this Linux thingy and these computers and technology, that's trendy, let's attend"). But he doesn't own the LinuxTag. By staging a boycott, the German OSS crowd gives him a de facto ownership of the event.

Re:Wrong reaction

[Opportunist]

What's it good for if you "own" an event and nobody shows up? It's about the worst you can do to a politician, avoid an event not despite him being there but BECAUSE. Can you see the headlines of next day's news? People avoiding an event they've been waiting for for a year, just because a certain politician was there? The antipathy towards this person being even stronger than their love for their hobby?

With a bit of luck, he'll even become unbearable for his party. And that can only be beneficial for Germany.

Re:Wrong reaction

[ericferris]

Hey, I'm sympathetic to the protesters. Once, I was manning a stand at a computer show, and I walked out when the mayor of the city showed up among cameras and flashes. I waiting for him to be gone. But notice that I ignored him, I didn't gve him control of the whole show. So I understand the motives, but I do believe that the stategy is misguided. For the boycott to be successful, it will have to be complete. We'll see. If the boycott is not complete, LinuxTag will be Schaeuble's event, And if it fails, nobody among politicos know what Linux is anyway. It's OSS in Germany that will be hurt, not the Minister who couldn't care less. That's what I am afraid of. When LinuxTag opens on May 30th, we'll see if the protester's strategy was successful.

Re:Wrong reaction

[cp.tar]

Actually, you just gave me an idea...

What about making a game out of it?
Avoid the Moron, it should be called.
Post lookouts for him; then, when he arrives, make sure there's nobody within 10 metres from him.
When he approaches a stand, everyone clears; who cannot clear, hides.
Hell, put up "Closed due to moron proximity" signs on stands when he approaches.

And make sure it's all recorded.

Re:Wrong reaction

[Bloke down the pub]

What's it good for if you "own" an event and nobody shows up?

He may own it, but the protesters pwn it. OMG, etc.

Re:Wrong reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, he won't be directly affected by this action. For him, the "Linuxtag" is just another public relations event, good for his public image. But if his participation hurts the organisators they will think twice about inviting him again, giving the stage to another politician instead. A politican who supports the ideals of the German OSS scene, thus giving him more political credibility and taking it from Schäuble.

Re:Wrong reaction

[messner_007]

When you feel that organisation that you are part of, is making bad thing, then it is the time to leave.

But first, you have to say it loud. When they don't care, you shoul leave and found (or join) a new organisation. You can not afford yourself to stay with dickheads. You will become one of them. That is the best way to defend what you think.

And when your grandson asks you:"Where you on an event, when the thing started to run downhill ?", you can say:"I tried to change it and then I left. No I wasn't with them anymore, when they started to mess with dickheads."

Re:Wrong reaction

[ericferris]

That's more like it!

One remark, though: do not underestimate people you disagree with, especially politico. Remember that the image they project has nothing to do with their actual personality. Underestimating them, calling them "morons", lulls you into a false sense of superiority.

You're much better off suspecting them of ulterior motive sthan ascribing their actions to stupidity.

Re:Wrong reaction

[cp.tar]

Agreed.

'Moron' was just a placeholder word I used to represent a general feeling/attitude; people attending LinuxTag will probably think of better texts. They still have a week or so... I'd probably go with a picture of his face, crossed with a red line or two, and the inscription 'Firewalled.'

But I don't speak German, so I couldn't suggest anything really good.

P.S. Politics is the one area where I assume malice by default. Stupidity is in the hands of voters; politicians themselves are malicious.

Re:Wrong reaction

[zobier]

That's a brilliant idea. They could also use a symbolic ward to "protect" themselves e.g. a plush penguin.

I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[bursch-X]

How would you like it to hear stuff like:

This surveillance camera and its motion detector was brought to you by Linux!
Or BigBrother 2007, it can't be evil, it's all open source!

I don't want this fucker (Schäuble) to be associated with anything FOSS.

Re:I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[zappepcs]

I don't know if it's just me, but lately there seem to be a lot of people around the world that are making their voices heard either via the Internet or boycotts etc. This is nothing but a good thing, and I hope that the German people are able to send a message loud enough to be heard by all concerned.

Mr Orwell's Big Brother and F/OSS really don't need to be friends...

Re:I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[kestasjk]

I'd rather not have any software monitor me, but if I was going to have a piece of software monitor me I'd rather I was able to check out its source and see exactly what is being monitored that just have a black box and have to take the word of the authors.

Re:I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[bky1701]

...More reason to want FOSS to have nothing to do with BB; it may make some feel somewhat better about it. If someone is going to spy on people, I don't want those spied on to be comforted in the fact it's "open source"; they should never be comforted by anything relating to Big Bother.

Re:I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This surveillance camera and its motion detector was brought to you by Linux!
Or BigBrother 2007, it can't be evil, it's all open source! It sure puts a whole new spin on "Digital Rights Management," doesn't it.

Re:I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[Opportunist]

That's Digital Consumer Enablement for you. C'mon, do them the favor, I'm pretty sure they had to spend a small fortune for that streamlined, spiffy new name.

Re:I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[cpghost]

I'd rather not have any software monitor me

Well, I would, but only if it's the kind of software that saves lives. Like most programmers, I'm working at night and alone. Should I get a heart attack or stroke, I'd highly appreciate it if monitoring software were to set off some alarm or calls 911.

Re:I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

More reason to want FOSS to have nothing to do with BB

I think that misses the point. Once you put out an idea, you cannot control what others do with it. You can try to be as far as you want from your opponent, whether you give away or sell your idea or product, you lose control of how it is used and for what it is used. In some ways, GPL does force changes to be released (assuming it's from an organization in a country that respects copyright laws), but that usually doesn't work for custom userland software that uses the OSS software system. On the up side, you usually aren't legally or responsible with what other people do with your idea or product either.

Re:I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[maxwell demon]

Indeed, it would be a nice countermeasure if all you had to do to evade surveillance cameras was to put a VEIL pattern onto your clothing! :-)

Re:I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[Opportunist]

Can we agree on "if software monitors me, I get to decide when and what"?

Re:I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[LWATCDR]

Wouldn't it be better to show up and protest him there? Ask him uncomfortable questions and such?
Frankly the people coming from other nations probably don't know anything about him and this would be a good way to educate him and get it into the world press.
Guest from outside Germany will most likely think that the FOSS community in Germany is shrinking.

I guess focus groups are out of the question too.

[glas_gow]

and that Schaeuble probably won't even notice

Nice to see a politician who's right in touch with the electorate.

What gives you the idea that he was?

[Opportunist]

I'd already count it as a sign of improvement if he got at least in touch with reality. Personally, I'd rather see this as a weak attempt to polish his rather damaged goodwill with people who don't share his vision of removing every bit of freedom people fought and suffered for in the last century to gain some imaginary security.

Maybe he'll get the hint when people, who he wants to impress by showing off how "freedom" oriented and modern he is, don't show up and turn their collective backs to him. Though I highly doubt it.

You have to anyway

[Opportunist]

Unless a machine is running under your directions, you have to take the word of the person owning or running it. Even if you can see the source, you have no way to determine whether it's the source of the program running. So what difference does it make? They could well show you one source and have a completely different binary running.

Yes, I do not trust our politicians.

It's Not "SchaeubleTag"

[Doc Ruby]

if the community boycotts LinuxTag, it's the open source software that will be hit the hardest, and that Schaeuble probably won't even notice

That sounds like exactly the reason Schaeuble is a bad sponsor for the event. And exactly what people of conscience do, that corporations don't - one of the crucial differences between Linux and other OS'es, like OSX and Windows.

And it sounds like it's LinuxTag which should notice their community rebelling, not their pet Minister who doesn't care at all about either of them.

Why does "free" have to have two meanings?

[Opportunist]

Maybe I'll live to see the day when people realize the difference and that the freedom of OSS doesn't necessarily have anything to do with beer... but I better not hold my breath.

Re:Why does "free" have to have two meanings?

[ScentCone]

Maybe I'll live to see the day when people realize the difference and that the freedom of OSS doesn't necessarily have anything to do with beer... but I better not hold my breath.

He's probably referring to the seemingly large correlation (or, at least, noisy overlap) between the FOSS crowd and the information-(or, at least the music and movies I want)-wants-to-be-free crowd.

Re:Why does "free" have to have two meanings?

[heinousjay]

Maybe you'll live long enough to realize that the freedoms aren't really important to more than the community that has already been attracted, and the free as in no charge (this free-as-in-beer crap stopped being clever right after the third time someone said it) is about the only hook that will attract the rest of the world.

German Linux Community?

[robot_lords_of_tokyo]

Who is speaking for me again? This is not a boycott from the "German Linux Community", it's a boycott by people that don't agree with his political policies. That's ok, but don't use that label. Schäuble is the minister of the interior, which is exactly the person that should be involved in this (that is, the person holding that position). Sure he's a dick, but he is the minister of the interior. If you don't like his policies, just vote next time.

Re:German Linux Community?

[Daniel Phillips]

Schäuble is the minister of the interior, which is exactly the person that should be involved in this (that is, the person holding that position). Sure he's a dick, but he is the minister of the interior. If you don't like his policies, just vote next time. I would say this is a kind of voting.

Re:German Linux Community?

[cpghost]

If you don't like his policies, just vote next time.

What for? His predecessor from the other side of the political spectrum, Otto Schily, was just as bad as Wolfgang Schaeuble.

In theory, you're right, but in the prevalent climate of fear since 9/11 and the massive shift away from civil rights towards security, monitoring, using confessions extracted through torture by foreign governments, ethnic profiling ("Rasterfahndung")... there ain't much you can do about it anyway. The only party in Germany that's quite skeptical of all this was the FDP (they had a minister who resigned over this when they were still in power; though it was before 9/11), but even they finally caved in to the security doctrine and are just paying dishonest lip service w.r.t. civil rights.

So voting yes, but there's no real political alternative to pick from. Boycotting LinuxTag is the only way for some people to show that they disapprove of all this. It's not LinuxTag's fault however, just an unfortunate mishap and PR fiasco.

Re:German Linux Community?

[NicklessXed]

His predecessor from the other side of the political spectrum, Otto Schily, was just as bad as Wolfgang Schaeuble.

Wait... wait.
Other side of the political spectrum? What's that supposed to mean? Schäuble is CDU, Schily was SPD. They're pretty much the same these days, except for some minor issues and the cheap attempts by the SPD to gain back a bit of favor with the people who traditionally always voted for them.
I don't believe for a second that they would do anything radically different if they were in charge.

You know, I really hate the FDP (liberals) for their twisted ideas about economic issues but they are probably our only hope for ever getting a minister of the interior who isn't a paranoid right wing nut.

Re:German Linux Community?

[hoojus]

Didn't you see south park whether you are voting for a giant douche bag or a turd it is the freedom to vote that is important

Re:German Linux Community?

[Anonymous Coward]

ethnic profiling ("Rasterfahndung")..

Wow. Now that's a creative translation.

Re:German Linux Community?

[A beautiful mind]

Sadly too many people think that all there is to a representative democracy is to vote once every four years and then the government can do whatever it likes without any repecussions.

Re:German Linux Community?

[cpghost]

Well, yes, somewhat creative, but the last "Rasterfahndung" was definitely ethnic profiling, and was later struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on behalf of a Moroccan student, whose constitutional complaint was financially backed by the general student organization ASTA.

Re:German Linux Community?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like his policies, just vote next time.

What for?

Piratenpartei?

Re:German Linux Community?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, do i need to remember your nick? As someone who is routinely misquoting, distorting facts and generally spreading bullshit? Even if the last "Rasterfahndung" was struck down by the courts you cannot rightfully equate it with ethnics profiling since you know quite well that it is an ongoing process in German police work. I'd think right now there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of very different cases in "Rasterfahndung".

Over and out.

Change Sponsors

[Anonymous Coward]

What does "running under the auspices of Wolfgang Schaeuble" mean?

What if LinuxTag simply doesn't "run under the auspices of Wolfgang Schaeuble?

If it's a matter of financial sponsorship, any last minute replacement sponsor will get more than their money's worth in PR.

good reaction

[someone1234]

The real owners of LinuxTag should have thought it before.
They still can remedy the situation, cancel the guy's invitation :)

Some details

[tmk]

It was not the idea of Schaeuble - he does not know a thing about computers. The idea comes from the Federal police in Germany, the "Bundeskriminalamt".

The Intelligence service "Verfassungsschutz" in Germany have the legal authority to search computers online yet - but they lack the technical ability. Some details about online searches leaked into the public.

One time they tried to infect a suspects PC with a Trojan on a CD-ROM. Unfortunately they distributed to many of the CDs until the eavesdropping server collapsed. Another time they tried to upload 120 gigabytes on a normal DSL subscriber line. After a week the suspect becam suspicious and manipulated the transmitting data.

No restriction on field of use

[jmorris42]

> This surveillance camera and its motion detector was brought to you by Linux!

Either you believe in NO restriction on field of use or you don't. Remember, you can use FOSS to build puppy mulchers. It is if course perfectly fine to object to puppy mulchers, and anyone who actually mulches a puppy but whether the machine runs Linux, BSD or Windows shouldn't matter. Except if it has some neato realtime hacks in the control mech, they use Linux and the manufacturer refuses to give up the patches. But if they participate in the usual way their patches should follow the same path into the kernel as anyone else's. If the fscking Norks start sending in patches they should be given exactly the same peer review as any one else's.

But on the broader issues here, part of civilizived behaviour is being able to agree with someone on one issue and work with them while disagreeing on others. I don't claim to understand the intricate German politics involved in this issue but if the Interior Ministry is putting money into sponsoring a show I just don't see the problem unless they plan to use their money to influence the show for some purpose at odds with the goals of Linux in the commercial settings a trade show normally deals with.

Let me give a few examples. I'm a right leaning anti-idiotarian libertarian, which puts me at odds politically with most of the readership here and a majority of the F/OSS camp. I can still think RMS is a visionary on the issue of Free Software, while also considering him a hopeless 'crazed moonbat with near terminal BDS' politically. But since he doesn't go to Linux events and rant about how evil Bush is I don't have a problem with him, at least on software issues. When RMS speaks with his FSF St. Ignuisus hat on I'll listen and often agree. I suppose he is also active on Kos or DU, but I wouldn't know. Which is the point, he doesn't try to use his considerable influence and moral authority to lend weight to issues is isn't an authority on. On the other hand I stopped donating to the EFF after 9/11 because they DID let their conspiracy theory politics infect their work.

Re:No restriction on field of use

[Hognoxious]

Remember, you can use FOSS to build puppy mulchers.

I'd like a people who allow their dogs to shit in the street mulcher. And with open source I can adapt a puppy mulcher. Thanks, FOSS!

Re:No restriction on field of use

[bursch-X]

I'm don't want to keep people from using FOSS however they want to, go on build your nuclear missile guidance system to attack whoever you want with FOSS if you feel like it, but this is a... yes a branding issue.

If "official" Linux events start to advertise themselves using very dubious and debatable politicians whose only image is "the guys who's unscrupulous enough to acutally make Big Brother happen" then I think they've completely failed at branding and they hurt the FOSS movement in a big way.

This basically conveys the message: Schäuble supports Linux - and as long as LinuxTag officially doesn't dissociate from him - LinuxTag and therefore Linux supports people like Schäuble. Whether this is in reality true is a different story, but it will appear like that to the public.

There's Nothing Wrong

[jack_csk]

There is nothing wrong for the boycott. If you don't agree on LinuxTag (its theme / guest speaker) feel uncomfortable, you would definitely have the freedom not to go, and persuade your friends not to go as well.

It is just like going to an Open Source fair organized by Microsoft / SCO. It doesn't hurt the open source community, it just reflects the feeling and belief among the community. Don't forget that we are living in a free world.

Here a bit of background...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Minister of Interior has traditionally been the "Schirmherr" (a sort of prominent figurehead, it's mostly a symbolic role) of Linuxtag. However, the current Minister of Interior has been furthering some pretty crazy ideas and is considered by many to be a threat to constitutional freedoms. For example, he strongly advocates data retention and what he calls "online search and seizure" which basically amounts to government agents hacking into private computers without noticing the owner to look for material that is illegal per se or planning material for illegal operations. In addition he has mentioned in an interview that "innocent until proven guilty" should not apply in certain situations.

This is why a lot of people think that he shouldn't be in a figurehead position of Linuxtag since his values are opposed to what Linuxtag stands for (or should stand for).

Re:Here a bit of background...

[muuh-gnu]

> The Minister of Interior has traditionally been the "Schirmherr" of Linuxtag.

How does one become a Schirmherr of Linuxtag? I doubt he offered his patronage out of his fondness for Linux and Open Source. So if he got actually invited by the organisers of LinuxTag, they seem not not care at all about his innner politics and fucked up Gestapo surveillance methods.

> This is why a lot of people think that he shouldn't be in a figurehead position of Linuxtag

He shouldn't. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise.

> since his values are opposed to what Linuxtag stands for (or should stand for).

Obviously LinuxTag doesn't care at all, since else they wouldnt have invited a wannabe Nazi/Stasi to represent their trade show. It is the moral duty of every freedom loving German OSS lover to not show up there, and thus show, in contrast to the LinuxTag, that they _care_ about Germany not slipping into the dark Nazi/Stasi ages _ever fucking again_. They wouldnt go to a LinuxTag patronaged by the German Nazi party NPD, so they shouldnt go to Schäuble's LinuxTag either.

Re:Here a bit of background...

[Kjella]

In addition he has mentioned in an interview that "innocent until proven guilty" should not apply in certain situations.

Sounds a lot like Gonzales/GWB that think habeas corpus is optional, partuiarly for suspected enemy combatants. Oh yes, they like to drop the suspected bit because "enemy combatants" that's not you and me. "Suspected enemy combatants" on the other hand, that could be you and me who has been mis-identified.

For being the socalled "free world", we sure come up with a lot of crap. Being slightly ahead of Putin's Russia in freedoms isn't exactly a shining beacon of freedom and liberty. Yes, the enemy is within our borders. Yes, the enemy has ties to the highest levels of government. No, the enemy isn't a few bearded terrorists.

I'm just waiting for the same sort of crap to follow on the Madeleine McCann case, that if everyone was tracked everywhere at all times, we'd know where she'd disappeared off to.

Trojan on CD-ROM

[cpghost]

One time they tried to infect a suspects PC with a Trojan on a CD-ROM.

What's wrong with distributing genuine Windows XP install media?

it's not open source

[Anonymous Coward]

>it's the open source software that will be hit the hardest

Open source software will be damaged by the LinuxTag. The are in fear of some loss in visitor figures.

LinuxDay

[matt me]

Is there a LinuxDay event anywhere?

For you zw var ist over

[edittard]

When that is one serviceable translation, an unserviceable one to certainly read I would not like.

Community hit hardest? Most likely not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its quite an insolence of LinuxTag to refer back to the community.

    "it's the open source software that will be hit the hardest"
or from the response
    "We do not see ourselves in the position to deliver here any recommendations would like however of the fact to
      remind that by a way remaining of the meeting earliest the many free projects are met, which prepared the
      presentation of their results under employment of substantial efforts in their spare time."

LinuxTag is not a community event and everyone who applied for a free project booth in the last two years will know how extremely selective the few decisionmakers have become (since Joey went away). Of course you always get a booth as a KDE or GNOME project, but otherwise you have to hope that the guys have no personal objections.
The response makes it look like the Linux community prepared it and will get hit hardest. In fact its the companies which have rented a booth and will now suffer sales leads.

If you are looking for pure business, LinuxTag might be a fine event. If you want to meet the *community*, go FOSDEM! Or Linux Tage Chemnitz for a German event.

PS: Note that "LinuxTag" is a protected word by LinuxTag e.V.!, Other local events are forbidden to use it - does *that* match well with an OS community???)

BMWi/FOSS

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, but, beeing an European living in Germany, I happen to know that they do have a ministry of technology (BMWi, "Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie"). So, why Schaeuble?

Schaeuble has a long track record of spreading (political) FUD. How can LinuxTag benefit from his involvement? How can he? Well, it seems LinuxTag does not benefit at all (being boycotted), and Schäuble at least gets some publicity. Smart move, LinuxTag!

I do not think Linux (or F/OSS or whatever software) is well off if pushed by non-savvy users: F/OSS is not just a cheap alternative to Microsoft stuff, its not just Yet Another Business Model.

I guess this discussion is actually about FREE and OPEN SOURCE software: OPEN SOURCE is a technical term, FREE has political implications. Of course it is mad to have freedom endorsed by someone who is known to (want to) limit freedom and basic human rights.

LinuxTag (and Novell and the like) seem to want to marginalize the "political arm" of the F/OSS movement. I, for one, am deeply concerned about the implications of ths trend.

Why shouldn't Wolfgang Schaeuble be the chiefgeek?

[owidder]

See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/05 /chiefgeek_wolfg.html Bye, Oliver

Some good Europeans

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I thought all Europeans were leftist Arab lovers. Schäuble seems like one normal guy.

Dummheit

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]Herr Schäuble selbst wird von solchen Maßnahmen vermutlich
überhaupt nichts mitbekommen[...] ...ach wenn das sooo ist.

Wie kann man nur auf die Idee kommen sich mit so einem Charakter
einzulassen? Haben die Verantwortlichen sich wirklich eingebildet das
das kein Problem ist? Das die Leute in Zeiten wo laut Medien bereits
"alles scheisse ist" sich sowas auch noch gefallen lassen?

Ihr werdet jetzt nicht nur Besucher verlieren sonder natuerlich auch
Sponsoren.

[...]durch ein Wegbleiben von der Veranstaltung am ehesten die vielen
Freien Projekte getroffen werden[...]

Das sind diese Leute selber schuld wenn Sie sich nicht informieren und
beim naechsten mal werden die auch nicht wiederkommen.

Ihr habt es nicht mit irgendwelchen Fernseh guckenden Mundatmern zu tun,
sondern mit Leuten die auf solche Fehler absolut keinen Bock haben.

http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/05/19/2149231.s html ...

Vielleicht waere es am besten sich von Herrn Schaeuble zu distanzieren
bevor irgendwelche Einnahmequellen weiter beschaedigt werden.

Aber ich bin mir sicher das man ueber dieses Problem mit der ueblichen
Arroganz hinwegsehen kann und sich irgendwelche Marktschreier finden
werden die aus dieser Veranstaltung zumindest einen Erfolg zum nachlesen
machen. Diese laecherliche Rhetorik...

[...]Herr Schäuble selbst wird von solchen Maßnahmen vermutlich
überhaupt nichts mitbekommen[...] ...ist doch schonmal ein Anfang :-)

[...] Mr. Schäuble received by such measures probably nothing at all [...] ... oh if sooo is. How can one come only on the idea with so a character to in-permit itself? Don't the responsible persons have that a problem are really conceited? That the people in times where according to media already "everything shits is" sowas leaves itself also still fallen? You become now not only visitors lose separate naturally also sponsors. [...] by a way remaining of the meeting earliest the many free projects to be met [...] Those are these people themselves debt if you do not inform and with the next time those will not also come back. You have to do it not with any television looking Mundatmern, but with people on such errors absolutely no support to have. http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/05/19/2149231.s html ... Perhaps it would be best from Mr. Schaeuble to dissociate before any sources of income continues to themselves damage. But I am me reliably which one over this problem with the usual arrogance way there marriages can and any Marktschreier will be from this meeting at least a success to reread to make. This ridiculous Rhetorik... [...] Mr. Schäuble received by such measures probably nothing at all [...] ... is nevertheless already times a beginning: -)

Re:Dummheit

[maxwell demon]

What if those who planned to go to the LinuxTag and now want to boycott it because of Wolfgang Schäuble instead make a demonstration in front of the Innenministerium? This way Schäuble will for sure notice it (if only through the media).

Re:Dummheit

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany you have to pre-announce Demonstrations long before you want them to took place.

The German Media does not support demonstrations.

You may rather steal an airplane and...

Re:Dummheit

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is, because of "security considerations" one can't even get near the Innenministerium for a demonstration any more. Ever heard of the Bannmeile Verordnung? You would be arrested in no time.

Re:Dummheit

[Anonymous Coward]

the point that is of significance here is not that he is an ass man with insane policy, the point is that FOSS is being used to develop programs that are used to spy on the community. What can be done about this? simply the open source community should cease to develop all software the would increase the governments ability to infiltrate a system. Further the community should develop programs to detect system infiltration that is from specific software types. this would limit the amount of available hacking programs and further increase the security level of the user.

Further it would be nice to see clause written into some of the open source licensing agreements that would limit the availabilty of certain software types to certain government departments.
these departs i assume write their own software so therefore why give them a helping hand i say.

just afew thoughts.

salathiel peregrin

Fascist

[Anonymous Coward]

Schäuble is a fscking fascist - I can understand that people don't want to have anything to do with him.

hit your enemy with his weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Schaeuble a corrupt attention whore? Well, then go to the Linuxtag and fill it with signs, shirts, whatever that will show his face and what you think of him, using strong but not offensive language.
Then he has the choice to either vetoing every media from reporting about the fair (censorship=bad PR) or let the information flow (bad PR), which puts him in a lose-lose situation.

Logic

[toolz]

Oh, I can so see the logic of this - instead of attending a community event in huge numbers and making your voices heard, you boycott the event and stay away, so that no one can hear you.

Seems logical to me.

LinuxTag doesn't elect the Minister (who automatically becomes the patron of the event, by virtue of his position) - the citizens do. Why punish LinuxTag for something they have no control over? They can't very well dump a patronship by a government ministry just because the *current* minister is a jerk.

That's would be like impeaching your president because he is a threat to world peace and a danger to every citizen of his country!

Oh, wait....

Re:Logic

[Opportunist]

They can't? Hello? When I hold a convention, I get to choose the partron. It would actually be a political statement that the community would understand and support.

Re:Logic

[toolz]

Right. So I boycott open source because I don't like Eric Raymond? (No offence, ESR - just a name I picked out of the hat)

The ministry has been very supportive of the event for years, and rejecting their support because the minister they report to right now (by virtue of his being elected) is a jerk?

Right. That's the way to do it.

Sheesh.

The only statement the community would make here is that it is to immature to handle the real world, where such things *do* happen.

e.g. let's take Bush.

Or rather, let's not.

Re:Logic

[Opportunist]

I can't remember the last time I elected a minister.

Re:Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

LinuxTag doesn't elect the Minister (who automatically becomes the patron of the event, by virtue of his position) - the citizens do. Erm.. no. That's just plain wrong. Next time pay attention in class, fucker.

you can't avoid the politics

[nanosquid]

Well, LinuxTag has a choice: they can continue under the auspices of Schauble, or they can disassociate themselves from him. Either choice makes a political statement.

In general, Schauble seems to be a persona non grata to many people, and the smart thing would have been to avoid the controversy by choosing someone else in the first place.

Re:Why shouldn't Wolfgang Schaeuble be the chiefge

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey that was great dude! Thanks for the laugh! I bookmarked your blog and will check it regulary!

electronic monitoring has nothing to do with OS ??

[messner_007]

TFA: Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble, Federal Minister of the Interior, took over the patronage over the LinuxTag 2007. After publication of this message we received many reactions, also among them some, which analyze the positions of the Federal Minister critically about "electronic monitoring" and "citizen rights".We welcome explicitly a critical argument with these topics, do not see these however not in the direct focus of our meeting. The goal of the LinuxTag registered association is it to promote free software. This goal is very important to us and our main objective.

Are they joking ? "electronic monitoring" and "citizen rights" have nothing to do with open source on LinuxTag ??? Are they going nuts ?

It might have to do with the language

[Opportunist]

The German translation of casting a vote would be "Stimme abgeben". Which can be retranslated as "giving up your voice".

Why is this Schaeuble guy such a bad choice?

[Crouty]

I suppose almost noone from countries other than Germany know about Wolfgang Schaeuble, his policy and what he stands for. But for German nerds it's bad news and stuff that matters. Among many other law and order topics he is trying to push forward he tries to get a law passed that would allow prosecuters to hack private computers.

That could possibly be acceptable if police hackers would need a proper warrant, the number of infilitrations was very low, the general public would get to know about these numbers and last but not least the observed subject would be informed afterwards. Experience with telephone wiretapping in Germany tells us that none of these democratic requirements are taken seriously.

Additionally, there are reserveations against the software that would be used as it is sure to open security holes for other malware.

This is basically what Wolfgang Schaeuble stands for among the German linux community and I can absolutely understand that many fellow nerds do not want to support a LinuxTag in any way that is somehow associated with Schaeuble. I for one don't welcome our new trojan dropping overlord.

Re:Why is this Schaeuble guy such a bad choice?

[fritsd]

Could you compare Schäuble to U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch? Then, the U.S. slashdotters have a point of reference. I'm not sure if it's a valid comparison (so, no offence), but I though Hatch also liked that kind of surveillance laws.

Imagine Orrin Hatch as the patron (or Protector) of the Open Source Business Conference.

Would be interesting to read the transcript of his speech!

Converting Germany into a large prison

[Anonymous Coward]

Schäuble is the leading fuckwit when it comes to take away the German people's freedom and civil rights and turning Germany into a police state of Orwellian dimension.

- Guilty until proven innocent
- Government-sanctioned hacking
- Massive data collection and spying on citizens (telephone, internet and also road toll data)
- Unlawful search warrant to suppress G8 and other protests
- Labeling everyone a terrorist who doesn't agree to his views
- Massive internet censorship
- Removal of the banking confidentiality
- Support of handing over German citizens and inhabitants to the US agencies for torture

in germany

[Anonymous Coward]

they would have thrown linux fags into the ovens a few decades back. wtf is going on around here?

Ask RMS

[ClosedSource]

He's the one who decided to use the word "free" in a anthropomorphic way.

Open Source and German Politics in the Mix

[Anonymous Coward]

"The LinuxTag always saw itself as a platform, on which also contrary topics are discussed"

From the translated article, LinuxTAG attempts to rationalize their political activism. Now, I'm not current on German politics, know little about Minister Schauble, and even less about LinuxTAG. Yet, I understand that if you make something free for anybody to use, you're taking the risk that someone you don't agree with is going to benefit from your work. I wonder if any leaders in the Open Source movement will denounce such blatant political activism from a Linux/Open Source group? Now arguably, some of this is the result of some misunderstanding between LinuxTag and the German government and their decision to sponsor. Certainly, if the German government knew that it would be sponsoring a group of political activists, they would of thought twice before sponsoring them. Am I completely misunderstanding German politics or has Minister Schauble managed to just shoot himself in the foot? Either way, I find myself more disturbed by the political activism than any of LinuxTAG's accusations against Schauble or the German government.

The bottom line is that LinuxTAG has every right to voice their opinions, but if they are not a political group, then why don't they voice their opinions like everyone else instead of hijacking their own event (sponsored by the government) for political reasons?

So?

[56ksucks]

Linux is free. They're boycotting a free product.

logo resemblance

[jimstapleton]

How does a rotting zombie-duck resemble tux?