Slashdot Mirror
RMS Talks Net Neutrality, Patents, and More
alphadogg writes "According to Richard Stallman, godfather of the free software movement, Facebook is a "monstrous surveillance engine," tech companies working for patent reform aren't going nearly far enough, and parents must lobby their children's schools to keep data private and provide free software alternatives. The free software guru touched on a host of topics in his keynote Saturday at the LibrePlanet conference, a Free Software Foundation gathering at the Scala Center at MIT.
Weird
Any link? Who are these "editors"? What a piece of shit this website has become :-)
I mean, seriously? No link to the keynote or to any article discussing it?
This place is really turning into a crapfest thanks to the silly editors...
This is just a headline. Is there a link to an actual story?
This seems like a new low for slashdot. I mean, I know we all aren't going to read the article or anything, but a link to it should still be there so that we can feel like we read it!
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
I saw some (i'm assuming) teenager post some angsty thing on a social page the other day and it occurred to me that we built this huge network that lets you reach out and speak to basically any other human being on the planet and people seem lonelier than ever. Odd, how that works...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This seems like a new low for Slashdot. I mean, I know none of us read the articles, but still, the link should at least be there so we can feel like we read it!
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
Where's the TFA?
Is this where a helpful /.-er is supposed to post a link to TFA?
Edith Keeler Must Die
And the link to his speech is where??? Please provide the link(s) to a video or text copy of his speech.
Thank you!
Facebook solved the problem of contact management very nicely. I remember the days of sending mass emails to all your contacts with new contact information... unless you manually updated your contact database then it was over and you didn't have great control over who's emails you would see and you couldn't discover old friends online...
To retain some small semblance of our privacy though we really need a set of Internet communications protocols for updating and managing address books and some sort of open directory infrastructure where people could register and look up and discover friends. But keep the information about who is connected to who private and not mediated by an all knowing third party who is selling that data to the highest bidder where it is really being used against our interests.
All it would really take is some protocol for sending or attaching updated contact info in an email or over any other protocol that a client would then use to automatically update a local/server copy of your friends list. People still rely on web mail primarily so the data would likely remain vulnerable to snooping, but at least people would have the option of keeping their data on privately owned hardware.
After all, he says he doesn't use a web browser.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If anyone is counting
Wouldn't it be nice if there were some way of linking us to additional information on the topic so that we could see his quotes in context? A shame that these things don't exist. They'd be hyper neat.
this is basically incitement to flamewar :)
From TFS: According to RMS, Facebook is a "monstrous surveillance engine,"
Frankly, I think he's being excessively kind on Facebook there and that's the last thing I would have expected from him!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Has RTFA become so absent that we just don't bother with TFA anymore?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Not Scala Center
In the end, the fact that citizens of the EU and of Canada reside in the US and, under the separate US/Canada and US/EU Data Treaties can not have their privacy rights stolen without specific item by item agreement (not Click To Accept), will be what saves the US Internet from itself.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
you obviously didn't listen to his talk, he uses icecat with tor now.
http://www.networkworld.com/ar...
You don't need a browser when you have emacs.
I've always thought we should just dismiss the pedantry of linking to the article as it's never read anyway.
Here's a transcript: http://libreplanet.org/wiki/GN...
And an article written about the keynote: http://www.networkworld.com/ar...
(Thanks to 2 AC's for pointing these links out.)
The whole event was recorded and streamed, so the keynote video should be available some time soon.
(I can't see any reason why the article summary didn't include the link.)
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
Stalman has done a lot, but sometimes his ideas get in the way of actual software. Hurd? after decades still not shipped. gcc? Got out of hand until it got taken over by egcs.
That makes no sense. His idea was to have a 100% free unix. They started working on the hurd. Then Linux came along and it was under an acceptable license, so RMS declared that the problem was solved, GNU had the kernel it wanted and so developing one was no longer a priority.
Likewise ECGS (Experimental GNU Compiler System) was a fork of GCC it proved substantially better, so the FSF abandoned the mainline and adopted the superior fork.
In other words, I think both examples you've given of RMS getting in the way are actually examples of exactly the opposite.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The Fed is not private. What private bank returns interest profits to the Treasury each year? What private bank explicitly is chartered to work in the public interest, and follow directives Congress gives it? The Fed was created to replace the private central banks ("clearninghouses") that had been evolved to expand the money supply in panics. The private sector realized that it was not good to have an individual such as J. P. Morgan as the lender of last resort, because as a private, profit-motivated individual he was in a position to help only his friends and hurt his enemies.
The Fed learns. In the Great Depression, it misguidedly tried to defend the dollar's gold conversion ratio and did not expand the money supply nearly enough. In the latest crisis, Bernanke expanded the Fed's balance sheet by a trillion dollars in a matter of weeks (and the predicted hyperinflation, from the quantity theory of money theorists, failed to materialize).
The Fed can and should continue to learn, to backstop individuals instead of corporations. The Fed should backstop social security, and local and state governments such as Detroit. We can expedite the learning process by voting in congressional representatives that tell the Fed: "Finance a basic income", for example. The Fed will figure out how, they know they can finance anything.
But I disagree with the having Stalman as the locus of free software. There was free software before him (BSD, etc) and will be free software after him. Maybe capitalize it right. Yeah, he created the Free Software Foundation. Just call it that.. godfather of the FSF.
Stalman has done a lot, but sometimes his ideas get in the way of actual software. Hurd? after decades still not shipped. gcc? Got out of hand until it got taken over by egcs. Was also the "Cathedral" in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" as the example of what NOT to do. emacs? Witness the hassle with xemacs and emacs.
I believe Stallman is credited for this because the average user never heard of Open Source or Free Software until the arrival of the GPL and its enabling of systems built with the Linux kernel and GNU userland. Now that those have arrived and taken off, the corporate investment in open source software has increased tremendously and most people have at least heard of Linux even if they don't personally use it. Lots more people at least use some kind of open source software even if they are not programmers and don't appreciate what this means, e.g. Firefox, much of Android and its apps, many servers run Linux, etc. These things are all based around the GPL.
One could speculate that what the movement really needed was more ubiquitous Internet access, of course, but for whatever reason, FOSS and similar ideas were completely unknown to average users until the GPL took off. That's why Stallman receives this kind of credit. You also have to admire a guy when most criticisms against him boil down to "you are too much of a purist" which can be restated as "you are too consistent [for my liking/convenience] with your stated principles". He contributed not just a license that really facilitated worldwide collaboration, but also a consistent, well-articulated set of principles based on his best understanding of freedom; and he actually got many people to listen to them. That's an accomplishment all by itself.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
"monstrous surveillance engine" He left out evil. Should be: "evil monstrous surveillance engine"
But Facebook can be useful: Are you too happy? Is it uncomfortable being happier than everyone else? Do you want to be miserable like everyone you see around you?
Facebook has an answer. Read Facebook use predicts declines in happiness, new study finds. Or download the scientific paper.
He has a problem with personal hygiene.
If this was intended to make RMS look bad, it has backfired. It just makes his detractors look like a bunch of schoolyard children who can't come up with a real criticism, but decided they just don't like the guy so he must be bad.
Good to see that RMS is now backing libre hardware, I remember the last time Slashdot interviewed him he seemed completely unaware of it and thought that he was being asked about drivers.
The data logger in my sports car is libre hardware & software B-)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
There was free software before him (BSD, etc) and will be free software after him.
RMS did not invent free software. But he was the first to espouse the philosophy of free software, and argue that it was an ethical and moral issue. He also made huge practical contributions. If you run Linux, you are likely using a lot more code written by RMS than by Linus.
Here is a link, for those who haven't watched it: https://youtu.be/I25UeVXrEHQ
Unless you've been under a rock since 1983, you already know largely what position he's going to take when you go to his talk.
Complaining about it is like going out of your way to attend a Baptist Tent Meeting and then complaining that they were evangelizing.
I disagree with him on a number of areas (Surprise! Must be the first time someone has disagreed with RMS.), but he's worth listening to. Often there's a kernel of clue in what the more extreme types say.
What non-governmental institution turns over its profits to the US Treasury? What non-governmental institution has to have its head approved by Congress? What non-governmental institution has its charter written by Congress?
The Fed should learn to keep interest rates low. If you look at a graph of interest rates, you'll see that interest rate hikes preceded 8 of the last 9 recessions. Only four out of 12 rate hikes didn't cause recessions.
Why should the Fed raise interest rates now? It just raises costs to borrowers and increases bank profits. Interest rate hikes caused the housing crisis in 2007, because the ARMs adjusted to the increased prime rates instigated by the Fed.
Why is there this mass hysteria that rates have to increase, when clearly rate increases precipitated the most recent crash?
"The Federal Reserve also ignored Bagehot's recommendation of what to do during a bank run: make money readily available but on good collateral at dear prices. Instead, the Federal Reserve paid good money for garbage from the banks."
I would argue that the collateral is good. It was market groupthink that resulted in the crash, gossip in chatrooms hysterically screaming that every mortgage was in default. In fact the vast majority of mortgages didn't default. A few did, which was expected, but irrational paranoiac fear took over, as the market loves to let it.
Bagehot was too conservative with his "at a high rate of interest" dictum. Also, the Fed should bail out individuals, not banks. Even Kenneth Rogoff agrees:
It is up to us to change the political possibilities by educating ourselves and voting in representatives that will tell the Fed to help individuals instead of corporations.
1) He's not made a religion out of it, you've decided that it is easier to "explain away" as a religion and therefore decided it is.
2) You can't build anything. You needed the freedom to use the tools how you wished to use them to create your edifice. If your hammer had an EULA that said you couldn't share the house you built with it and if you left or moved house, then you had to destroy the house or be jailed and/or fined, then you would know how much you need to have the freedom of hammer manufacturers curtailed.
3) Nobody made you use GPL software. You have to agree to MS's EULA which restricts you and what you do (and still pay) to use their code. You have to agree to Sun's EULA to use their code (and give away your patents). And all the GPL does is set the standard payment of "you cannot close the software" as the payment. Do you rip off Microsoft or Sun's code because you feel you should be free to use their code in your software for whatever you want? They disagree. But you only whine about the GPL having a problem with it.
4) FB keep changing their ToS and agreements. Much like Microsoft's network that originally made ANYTHING you discussed on their social media network that was patented a free and gratis grant of license to Microsoft to use, the agreements need serious consideration. And only when lots of people complained about a bad agreement did Microsoft change. You seem not to want this complaint of FB to stand. Is that because FB is sacrosanct, or because it's RMS doing it? Either of those two must be true (or both true) for this double standard.
5) The success of Linux required the GPL. Without it, it would languish like BSD has done. When a competitor can rip off your code and use you as development support, you want some payback, and GPL gave it when BSD doesn't. So only pointless stuff is added to BSD, stuff that doesn't make a difference. In the GPL code you can add your useful technology and get free help from people who are helping you because it helps themselves.
Facebook and Google are far and away the best publicly available advertising tools you will find for a long time. The first place to put your business is on Facebook. And if you're selling really good shit, you cannot fail by putting all those little icons(Twitter, Linkedin, etc.) on your page. Trickle down technology, exploit it for all it's worth. Bring a friend!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Father? no. Godfather? sure why not.
BSD was free before that. Since the 70's. BSD used to pass tapes around to a lot of Universities. They'd add things, and then pass the tapes back. Sneakernet opensource.
AT&T sued to make it not free. But just because AT&T wanted to shut it down, doesn't mean it wasn't free software in spirit at the time. You can think of the BSD lawsuit as validating BSD, and free software (no capitals) as well.
Linus didn't think it wasn't free, but didn't want to deal with the mess. The original F.U.D.
Stalman has done a lot, but sometimes his ideas get in the way of actual software. Hurd? after decades still not shipped. gcc? Got out of hand until it got taken over by egcs.
That makes no sense. His idea was to have a 100% free unix. They started working on the hurd. Then Linux came along and it was under an acceptable license, so RMS declared that the problem was solved, GNU had the kernel it wanted and so developing one was no longer a priority.
Likewise ECGS (Experimental GNU Compiler System) was a fork of GCC it proved substantially better, so the FSF abandoned the mainline and adopted the superior fork.
In other words, I think both examples you've given of RMS getting in the way are actually examples of exactly the opposite.
It does take a certain humility to abandon what may very well have been a project dear to one's heart, in order to advance a larger goal that will benefit more people. What's more typical is to see Not Invented Here and other forms of pride get in the way of what should be a technical decision. The very idealism that draws so much (mostly useless) criticism to this guy (from people who haven't contributed a fraction of his works) is his best feature.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Modpoints or I'd post in my own name ...
Highly tempted to mod you up but I am terminally unable to decide whether to mod you as "insightful" or "funny"
Definitely "Funny", since it's an AC. If it were a logged-in user, I'd use "Insightful" to contribute in some small way to their karma score.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
You're not only missing the point, you're also falling for the line that companies like facebook want you to fall for. There's no way to say this nicely and you'll probably hate me and disagree with me, but I have to tell you anyway.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
From an interview on July 2005 about the housing bubble:
INTERVIEWER: Tell me, what is the worst-case scenario? Sir, we have so many economists coming on our air and saying, "Oh, this is a bubble, and it's going to burst, and this is going to be a real issue for the economy." Some say it could even cause a recession at some point. What is the worst-case scenario, if in fact we were to see prices come down substantially across the country?
BERNANKE: Well, I guess I don't buy your premise. It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So what I think is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize: might slow consumption spending a bit. I don't think it's going to drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
There are much worse religions than that.
I wish most religions placed half that much value on justifying their doctrines.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
s/on/in
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
... and never use software I don't like! My opinions are objective truths of the universe and can never be wrong.
Perhaps this is a generational difference. In school, I was taught not to write "I think this is so" or "I believe this is true" in anything even slightly resembling formal composition. I was taught that, perhaps barring a rigorous scientific publication, anytime you read any written work of any sort in which the author takes a position, what you are reading is exactly that: one person's position. It should be understood as something like an opinion, something that may change at a later date, something with which others may have good reasons for disagreement. This is one part of thinking for yourself, by the way.
The more modern trend is to assume that anytime anyone speaks, they automatically presume to speak for everyone else in the most absolute terms possible unless this is otherwise disclaimed. Therefore much time is wasted bickering about things like "but I'm an exception!" and "that's just your opinion!" and many false judgments against someone's character are made, such as yours. While condemning someone for such a flimsy reason may be a reassuring outlet for the type of insecure people who contribute nothing but love to throw stones, if you are honest, you may have noticed it's not making any progress.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
The world could have collaborated and built the modern Internet just fine on BSD licensed software, which is itself a variation of public domain. What Stallman deserves credit for is inventing the Copyleft license as a way to compel source code sharing. He's stayed relevant beyond that as source for paranoia about software being used against people, a stance that looks more prescient each year.
You make it sound as if it was a coincidence that FLOSS took off at the very precise time that the GPL was created. It was not. The GPL is different from other permissive licenses in that it perpetuates the openness of the system it's used in; therefore it has a natural mechanism for survival of the project, that confers it an competitive advantage and makes it more robust against closed forks.
This "whatever" reason may very well be that the GPL was created. The fact that source for all published modifications had to be released back to the project was a strong incentive way back for FLOSS developers to prefer contributing in GPL projects over BSD ones. It may not be that much relevant nowadays because the sharing culture has grown stronger, but the idea of "copyleft" and the "share and share-alike" was a necessary element to make it happen.
The Unix wars were still fresh in our minds, so we were all painfully aware of what happens when Big Megacorp forks a free system and releases a strong closed fork with commercial support, competing with the original project. In that context, copyleft is a guarantee that the software you've volunteered to will not be strangled by a strong vendor using the software without giving anything back.
The idea that big companies should support open source software as proof of their good will, even if the license doesn't require it, was mostly a consequence of the dynamics reinforced by the GPL mindset. Prior to that, BSD licensed UNIX vendors fought over the patents achieved on their particular variant and treated it as intellectual property to be defended, not as a shared resource to be cultivated.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
True, but the nature of collaboration with BSD software would have been much more enterprise-y and committee-centered.
The idea of grass-roots FLOSS development only happened after Stallman's ideals of "giving back to the community" spread around with strong guarantees that their contributions would remain open, which didn't happen with the "public-domain-but-not-quite" that plagued the BSD-licensed but patent-encumbered UNIX systems.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
The world could have collaborated and built the modern Internet just fine on BSD licensed software, which is itself a variation of public domain. What Stallman deserves credit for is inventing the Copyleft license as a way to compel source code sharing. He's stayed relevant beyond that as source for paranoia about software being used against people, a stance that looks more prescient each year.
The BSD license very well could have worked, in the sense that I know of no law of physics or any other hard barrier making it impossible, yes. But generally to get something like what we've seen from the GPL Open Source movement, you need some kind of hedge against total selfishness. This is particularly true when dealing with corporations. That's the one thing the BSD license does not provide.
Perhaps in a more ideal world that does not still have such a pronounced scarcity mentality, the BSD license would have been sufficient. But in the world we know today, it's clear to me why one was more successful than the other (in terms of participation) long after a time when both were available.
I'll add, "paranoia" is one of those words that gets thrown around. Properly understood, it means an unreasonable fear of what is either impossible, or so astronomically unlikely as to be completely impractical. It doesn't take much study of history to see the repeating pattern that, again and again, any form of power or authority that can be abused, has been abused. Knowledge and technology are forms of power. It is inevitable that those who can wield them will abuse them. It's a scenario that is not only inevitable, but one that should be expected and prepared for.
To do otherwise is simply foolish and naive, an act of investing tremendous trust in institutions that have repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy. I wonder sometimes if it's merely a problem of scale. If an individual lies, deceives, manipulates, or otherwise acts dishonestly towards another individual, confidence is quickly broken and trust withdrawn, often permanently. If a government or other large institution repeatedly acts dishonestly, you often see this faith-based (certainly not fact-based) defense that it meant well, will do better next time, and deserves our continued trust. This is usually never explicitly stated, but can be readily observed in the decisions many people make.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
That makes no sense. His idea was to have a 100% free unix. They started working on the hurd. Then Linux came along and it was under an acceptable license, so RMS declared that the problem was solved
However Linux isn't about Free Software and it doesn't assign copyrights to the FSF (so it will forever be GPLv2) so even though RMS is all upset about Tivoization it will continue to exist for Linux because Linus disagrees with RMS and sees Tivoization as a good thing because the philosophy of Linux is about sharing of code, not "freedom".
The world changed, we got more embedded systems and highspeed broadband which allowed for SaaS, the FSF copyright assignment meant these could be addressed with updated licenses to cater for changes to the technology sector but Linux not being about Free Software meant not handing the keys to the FSF and thus the quickest path compromise of using Linux has meant there is no real Free Software kernel.
RMS did not invent free software. But he was the first to espouse the philosophy of free software, and argue that it was an ethical and moral issue.
That's really the part that hasn't taken off though. Even Linux - Free Software's biggest claim to fame - is about open source and code sharing rather than the ethics and morals of the FSF.
This is something they knew, GCC could have easily had a license term (just like the GPL has with library linkage) that the input to it must be GPL-compatible and as such could only be used for Free Software but they didn't because people are more interested in getting things done than aligning with the FSF's philosophical point of view. This gives developers who use GCC the ability to not give the Free Software freedoms to other people and that is exactly the thing the FSF's restrictive licenses exist to prevent.
If you run Linux, you are likely using a lot more code written by RMS than by Linus.
Not really, this is where the distinction is important. If you run GNU/Linux then maybe, but if you run another Linux - like Android for example - you may find there is very little GNU in there.
Looking at the kerfuffle around LLVM/Clang you can find more of the same attitude from RMS—he doesn't have the ego invested in the work as his detractors claim he does (often without examples cited at all, sometimes as with the grandparent poster with wrong examples cited):
Those aren't the words of someone who places ego above the good of the project or the public. For software freedom seekers, software freedom and defense of software freedom is the goal and good for the public.
Digital Citizen
Actually, on 2015-03-16 he said he's been using a web browser and Tor. I don't know if the two are related and I don't know when he started using a common browser in a typical fashion.
Digital Citizen
Good old dictionary.com says paranoia is baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others. There are a few examples where I think Stallman is excessively paranoid. I personally like using the web only over e-mail to avoid "survellance". Wander that deep down the rabbit hole, and the all powerful three letter agencies out to get you will also have secret exploits for Lynx. Seriously, it's all in the Snowden documents! And I totally did remember to take my medication!
However, there are way less examples that seem extreme like that today then there used to be. Re-writing your hard drive firmware with secret monitoring tools? In 2015 evidence that might be happening is reasonable news, not paranoia.
I've seen plenty of examples of companies who do not want to share code unless compelled to. There are software compliance tools for lawyers whose main purpose is checking corporate source code repos to make sure there's no GPL code. But the number of corporate contributors to all the BSD distributions says the GPL is not mandatory to develop open code. Did it help? Sure. I think open source software as a way to share overhead on boring infrastructure code was inevitable though, even if there was no "free software" (tm).
That grass-roots FLOSS development only happened after the GPL does not mean it was necessary to create it, nor even caused directly by it. Giving away free software to promote consulting and support revenue can be a profit center independently of other motives. I can easily imagine an alternate 2015 where there was no Stallman, so instead consulting companies shared boring infrastructure code to split its development costs.
No one considers using fucking Android to be "running Linux" in the common sense.
Well what is "running Linux in the common sense"? If what you're saying is that GNU/Linux has a lot more GNU in it than non-GNU/Linux then that's obviously pretty redundant and makes no point at all.
Similarly, I don't "run Linux" when I use the seat-back terminal on a Virgin America flight or when i turn on a router.
Well that's not a personal computing sense, it isn't your computer but on a smartphone or a tablet it absolutely is. So which of the following is "running Linux in the common sense" and why: Ubuntu, Ubuntu Phone, Maemo, ChromeOS, Android?
Interest rates are about managing inflation/deflation and about creating a stimulus tool during difficult economic times. Think of the interest rates as a piggy bank - right now, our piggy bank is empty because we burned all our 'savings' in attempting to spur the economy after the most recent crash. If we hit another recession while this piggy bank is empty, we will lack a tool that helps ease the recession cliff significantly. As far as recessions go, this is the most important tool - if the economy changes too drastically too quicky, people don't have time to adapt and it creates a downward spiral with lots of irreparable damage.
I urge you to consider that Occam's Razor does not apply in the social realm, where motives are often hidden. This makes "paranoia" difficult to distinguish from "foresight".
In my personal unqualified opinion, it's like using alcohol. If there is no sign that it harms your well-being or reduces the quality of your life, then you do not have a problem. If there are such signs, then you do. In the absence of such signs, I would call it "caution".
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Subject line says it all.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
for whatever reason, FOSS and similar ideas were completely unknown to average users until the GPL took off.
It wasn't entirely clear that source code could be copyrighted until 1980 (see history), shortly before the creation of the GPL. So that is probably why.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The Fed should learn to keep interest rates low. If you look at a graph of interest rates [stlouisfed.org], you'll see that interest rate hikes preceded 8 of the last 9 recessions. Only four out of 12 rate hikes didn't cause recessions.
That's the worst attempt to interpret data I've seen all month. Nice try bro.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Rather than call it pure coincidence, which I deliberately and knowingly stopped short of saying, I was implying that it is not. I simply didn't care to get into the minutia of precisely how that happened and what the exact sequence of events were, since my point did not depend on the details, only on the truth that things happened in this manner.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein