Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Attacked by Ninjas
vivIsel writes "When RMS took the stage to address the Yale Political Union, Yale's venerable parliamentary debate society, it was already an unusual speech: instead of the jacket and tie customary there, he sported a T shirt, and no shoes. But then he was attacked by ninjas. Apparently some students took it into their head to duplicate an XKCD webcomic before a live audience — luckily, though, Stallman didn't resort to violence. Instead, he delivered an excellent speech about DRM."
This is perhaps the greatest thing anyone has ever done, ever. Though it would've been better if they'd come down from the ceiling.
If Richard Stallman wants everything to be free, maybe he should create a whole bunch of decent stuff and give it away. Without license. Without license. Without license.
But where were the pirates? Clearly someone has to defend RMS against the ninjas...
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Apparently no one told web designers at Yale how to resize photos so they don't have to use a full size, 1.6 Meg picture that's scaled down in the HTML.
My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
This is, as far as I can tell, a reasonably accurate interpretation. His exact words are:
The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.
Care about privacy? Read this!
No, his purpose is to make it so all software has its source code available for modification. That's what he's here for. Think what you like of the guy, he's never veered from that purpose.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
If you ever go to the link pointed out (I know, we are in /., and RTFS is for weaklings only) ...
Instead, he delivered an excellent speech about DRM
you'll find a beautiful Minutes of the Debate in WORD.
Richard, your message was lost !
Because the minutes of the debate are in .DOC format.
One would think that any assembly styling themselves as being open-minded and advocating open debate would be above something as petty as a dress code.
Dress codes anywhere but where the dressing is essential to the event is pointless. How is a uniform going to inspire creative thought? If what matters is what people have on their minds, why care about what they have on their bodies?
"You're infinitely more insightful than me, but you aren't wearing the special clothes, so you can't join my discussion group."
Sounds like something straight out of an elementary school playground.
The flip side of the coin - if you wear a suit, lots of engineers won't trust you. And why should they? You're telling them you hope they'll respect you because of what you wear, instead of what you say.
Seems like by not dressing as other people do he's just adding more nonsense to the mix. Instead of delivering his message by speaking he's causing other people to focus on what he's wearing; generating controversy or trying to give himself a "look", instead of just giving a speech he's giving everyone other things to focus on.
e.g. Here we are, talking about his stupid dress choice, and not about his speech. If he just dressed like everyone else we would be talking about what he said, not how he dressed, but he's taking away from what he said by dressing inappropriately.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
E.g., if I created a little piece of software and dumped it into the public domain, and someone picked it up, made a slight improved version, and marketed it widely, it might eventually take over, to the point where people forgot about its origin. (Which the 'improved' version's author might not even need to disclose.) Or something could happen by random chance to knock that one source for the original version offline. From that point on, users would have lost the freedom to look at the original version.
Think of how hard it can be to find very old versions of common software projects (or old/first editions of a book) -- sometimes they're nearly impossible to find, because they're buried in references to newer versions. Newer versions tend to subsume the old. (And this ignores the rather obvious case where a party making use of some public domain code might try intentionally to expunge the original from public sources, to protect their proprietized version.)
You can't simply assume that once information is made available, it will always be available. If not maintained and copied and actively disseminated, information dies; it fades away, for a myriad of reasons. The GPL prevents this from happening by making sure that the freedom in the original version is carried forward to all downstream variants and copies.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
He's not "dressing lazy"; IIRC he simply does not own a suit. He does not believe in wasting wealth on non-essential items; this enables him to live on a relatively small income while spending most of his time pursuing the ideals he cares about. In my opinion, this attitude is much more noble than your "Hey, there's a guy with a cheap wardrobe! What a disrespectful jerk!" attitude. Expecting someone to waste hundreds of dollars to dress up like a penguin (insert Linux joke here) just to show that they "respect" you is extremely childish. Respect is a quality of interaction between people--material goods have no inherent 'respect'.
And don't try to hide behind social custom. Just because some people are (by common custom) materialistic, elitist assholes doesn't mean you have to be too.
Alternately, he is undoing a system that sets too much store by clothing and labels by showing people that a hugely influential and intelligent person can get where they are and change things without having to conform to other people's expectations. In that, he is trying to bring about another social change he believes is for the better. And I agree with him. Confusing the cost of someone's clothing with the value of what they're saying is a problem in our society.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Exactly. In my opinion, the clothes are irrelevant and basically a filter: if you are the sort of person that will judge Stallman by his clothes, then the wisdom he has to offer is lightyears beyond your reach. It is better that you just dismiss it rather than polluting the discussion.
"If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
Believe it or not, that's exactly the point the parent is trying to make. If you're going to talk to an audience of scientific engineers, then dressing in a suit puts the audience on edge because their uniform is casual. If you're talking to an audience of suits, then a T-shirt is going to put them on edge.
We're all adult enough to set those biases aside, but if you're really interested in communicating with your audience, then it's in the interest of your message if you speak the language of the audience and follow (or at least don't offend) the social customs of the audience.
There is a dress code for speakers on the Union floor. (as opposed to audience members, although many, particularly those on the Right, dress up whether or not they're speaking) I'm told that we knew Stallman wouldn't follow it, and that (obviously) we invited him anyway. I think the Union blog remarks on it not so much out of any anger at RMS, but more out of surprise--the Union is a pretty old organization, I'd be willing to bet that this was our first-ever barefoot guest.
So: those of you who are accusing the Political Union of some kind of sartorial elitism; fine, fine. We have a dress code. But, clearly, we didn't let it get in the way of good debate. (Actually, we have it because we *want* good debate.)
After 100+ comments, discussing ONLY the merits of RMS presentation attire, truly, the messenger has been shot. Does the importance of presentation make more sense now?
When's the last time anyone bought a life insurance policy from a guy dressed up like a graveyard digger? We can all battle against conformance, yes. But overcoming the inherit biological prejudices of the mind in matters of perception is losing the war entirely. I don't' think it is respect, nor even appreciation. Maybe just common sense. Which seems to be lost on most brilliant minds, like RMS.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
I wouldn't say it is quality if clothing that shows respect as much as kind of clothing. If a speaker had on a $200 t-shirt of the highest quality I would still feel he wasn't concerned with respect. I had a professor that wore a suit to every class he taught, and explained he did so for the same reason he wears a suit when meeting with the University President: to show respect to those who he is addressing. I don't think it matters if it is a K-Mart, Armani, or custom tailored, as much as it matters that you showed effort to dress up. I wonder if people would think his choice in attire would be appropriate for a wedding or a funeral.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
It's just a simple mark of respect for the audience, showing that the event is something special that is worth preparing for.. This is why people don't go to weddings, funerals, graduations, etc, in dressing gowns (I know I find dressing gowns more comfortable, but I know the father in law would be a little annoyed)
You could say "omg you sheeple if I want to wear rainbow suspenders to your mom's funeral I will, you moron, because I don't follow arbitrary conventions like "wear black". I'm too cool and ironic to show respect and unity."
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Respect, in the grand scheme of things, is a red herring. You wear clothes in order to get cultural associations. You wouldn't want a doctor performing surgery wearing a suit, no matter how much "respect" it is supposed to show.
Similarly, showing up to a group of engineers wearing a western suit just shows that you're not an engineer. You're an executive and probably have little or no engineering training. You could also show up to a business meeting as an executive wearing the finest suit from the confuscious dynasty, and you'd never land the deal. If you wore a suit to a party thrown by a group of construction workers it might even be considred an offence. It's all about making cultural associations.
Stallman is in ridiculously high demand as a speaker. By showing up he shows that you're more important than the other dozen of speaking engagements available that day. But even if you're not in demand as a speaker, doing your job and doing it well is really all that is required to show respect. It's curteous to try to look nice (and can be enjoyable too), but it is by no means necessary. Frequently, a suit is just used to cover up for incompentence.
The ______ Agenda