My question is about the name "Free Software". I find that many people I speak to have difficulties understanding the significance of those words: i.e. "free" as in political freedom, self agency, liberty etc.
I would say "Open Source" is easier to understand as words, but you've often emphasised that it doesn't capture the full scope of the freedom in Free Software - I agree with that. I think a lot of people say "Open Source" - not because they deny the importance of the freedom, but just because non-technical people think they mean "Freeware" or "Shareware". This is annoying, because I'm always telling people to choose Free Software, but I have to say "you should make sure you get Free/Open Source Software" or some such cumbersome terminology just to get them to understand me.
Do you recognise the problem of terminology that I'm referring to? Have you ever thought about describing "Free Software" with any other titles? "Freedom Software", "Libre Software" or such? Other titles such as these - do you regard them as defective? If you had your time again would you chose a different title to aid understanding? If not, what would you say is the unique importance of the label "Free Sofware" over any other possible labels?
They should be build a pumped hydro storage system - like Dinorwig in Wales. These installations are so simple - I don't know why they're not more common.
Yes yes yes we know. UX people are teh suck. Everyone's been saying so for months, so it much be the truth.
But noone is forcing you to use Gnome 3. If you don't like it, don't. STFU and use Mate, Cinnamon, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, fvwm or whatever the hell you want to use. Support them. Contribute. File bugs. Fix bugs. But don't sit here whining about a project you don't use. Use something else and get on with it.
Also why not have a little class? Gnome 3 isn't to your taste? Oh well never mind. But some people have done a lot of work on it, some of it very good work. So when they do a release - why do you have to dump on it? This is free software - offered to you gratis, by comitted free sofware developers. It doesn't have to be your choice, but at least have the manners to acknowlege their work.
Yup - it's not SystemD's fault for solving this problem first.
I personally would be very happy to see the problem solved in OpenRC, SysV, Upstart and all the rest - if they can make it happen, that is. I just wish a fraction of the effort that goes into systemd whining and bitching around here could go into participating in a distro, or contributing to one of these init systems.
Oh wait no - these people don't help anything they just complain.
Before you go round acting like the sky is falling, try educating yourselves about why this is necessary. This is not just a systemd problem, this is a problem for any init system that wants to support multi-seat, and sane switching between VTs:
Now you may say that OMG systemd is teh evil monolith!!1!!!, but before you do that understand that this has been an important feature that has been needed for a long time in any init system it just happened that SystemD solved it first.
So, you are telling us that we should be praising open source software just because it's open source?
You guys have become so fanatic, you are blinded.
What makes you think I'm one of these guys? I have nothing to do with them. I don't even run Gnome 3 right now.
It's the polarised, non-technical, non-contributing circle-jerk that this whole conversation has become.
Some people here think there is a problem - one so bad that it fills them with anger. So being geeks you'd think they'd scramble to construct technical solutions. But noooooo... that would be far to useful. No instead they spend the whole time carping on web-forums.
Look - if you think there's a problem in the world, then the solution starts with you. Not the people over there in OSS project that you don't contribute to, or running the distribution you don't help with - it starts with you.
That's why I respect Mate, Cinnamon, LXDE, Xfce and Gnome3 folks. They're doing each doing good work - not all of it to my taste, but I respect the achievements. But I will never respect the spoutings of the giant crowd of trolls that now gather around this issue.
- Lennart is making an evil conspiricy to force me to use systemd.
- systemd is teh suck send to destroy beautiful SysV init - which is the true embodyment of perfection and any faults mentioned about it are by no-nothing windows script kiddies and mac wannabies.
- Ditto PulseAudio - except not so much now? now we quite like it because I can turn the volume up and down without it making a clicking sound.
- They're turning my precious Linux into Windowz!
- I'm leaving for the BSDs - don't try to stop me.
- wayland is teh suxxors because I can't run xeyes over a network any more. These people don't understand X! - wait what? it's by X developers? No way.
Look slashdot: If you don't like something stop being whiny luddite bitches and fix it. That's what open source is about.
And while you're at it stop trashing good work that's going on in other projects - even if you don't agree with the direction it's going in.
Simple! Trilithium is a nuclear inhibitor. Therefore any stars with excess trilithium would collapse at the moment of formation and we would never see them.
Note that this is not yet Greenwald's "Fireworks show" - his promised grand finale was delayed from 4th July. From what I've gleaned, there will be a big-bang scoop naming specific names of US citizens - major public and political figures - who were wiretapped by the NSA. USG has claimed there will be some harm done, so the story has been delayed while the journalist team investigate.
Take a look at the sigrok project. We have rather a lot of experience with low cost lab gear.
For a long time the best option for a standalone scope has been the Das Oszi scopes, sold under the brand names Hantek, Protek and Voltcraft. As a bonus, a guy name tinhead has reverse engineered the schematics. Hopefully we'll have it supported in sigrok very soon.
It seems to me that an EME module would be much easier to crack than a full browser plugin. In which case I predict that the secret keys will be disclosed rather soon.
What science defines that an 1-year old is a person, but a zygote is not? Please. Link me a paper.
I'm a science enthusiast, but far too many science enthusiasts here try and make science speak on issues that it doesn't speak. Science is totally silent - it's work unrelated to these philosophical questions. The question of what make a person is purely philosophical. So if you try and make Science speak on questions of justice, personhood, ethics, it will respond with silence, silence, silence. The only way to respond to these questions is with a philosophical worldview, such as your philosophy of "Materialism", but don't conflate this philosophy together with scientific research - they are not the same thing.
I'm not american, so I don't know much about the constitution.
And I fully support all people's rights. But what do you do when rights come into conflict? People are required give up many rights to serve their duting protect infants every day. Why is it any different for those unborn?
My argument about asking the child is obviously figurative - though you don't seem to understand. My point is who gave people like us to decide these people's fates. I argue that noone has the right to take a life whoever they may be. Any attempt to justify doing so ignores the rights and interests of the infant.
Well techically, I introduced a second factor that had thus-far been ignored (what is equitable for the infant), and argued (rhetorically) out that this factor takes moral greater priority than the one offerd by GP.
I havn't been any more or less logical than arth1 has. He just has a world-view, a philosophy, the name of which is "Materialism" - you may heard the term. It's the view that all is matter and matter is all (pluse energy, space, time etc.)
A lot of people here have that worldview. Some worldviews are consistent. Some are inconsistent. You can tell the inconsistent ones because they lead you to absurd conclusions: such as a human life only has life if it's self aware, therefore it's justified to kill 1-hour old infants.
The question then is do you have the thoughtfulness to challenge the received wisdom? And say to yourself - "if this is my philosophy and this is where it has lead me, could it be that my philosophy doesn't have all the answers". But it takes a degree of intellectual humility to challenge one's self this way.
Why? Explain how such a computer is any more special that it's components. Other than that it would be an intrigueing device. But at the end of the day, why does it have any special significance?
Well it's more expedient not to concern one's self with these things either way. It's kind-of a downer on the whole thing. It's not as if the child can complain.
If people are decide to kill infants this is simply wrong
The circumstances of the child's concept really don't have anything to do with it.
Also there seem to be quite a hatred of right wing people among American Slashdotters. They may well be arseholes, but that doesn't relieve of your duty to protect vulnerable infants.
But one thing I can wrap my head around: Ask the child whether it would be happy to have it's chance of life taken from it. Or ask them if they'd at least like a say in what their fate be.
Ask that question - ask yourself that question; and you can see that the issue really isn't all complex.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Richard
My question is about the name "Free Software". I find that many people I speak to have difficulties understanding the significance of those words: i.e. "free" as in political freedom, self agency, liberty etc.
I would say "Open Source" is easier to understand as words, but you've often emphasised that it doesn't capture the full scope of the freedom in Free Software - I agree with that. I think a lot of people say "Open Source" - not because they deny the importance of the freedom, but just because non-technical people think they mean "Freeware" or "Shareware". This is annoying, because I'm always telling people to choose Free Software, but I have to say "you should make sure you get Free/Open Source Software" or some such cumbersome terminology just to get them to understand me.
Do you recognise the problem of terminology that I'm referring to? Have you ever thought about describing "Free Software" with any other titles? "Freedom Software", "Libre Software" or such? Other titles such as these - do you regard them as defective? If you had your time again would you chose a different title to aid understanding? If not, what would you say is the unique importance of the label "Free Sofware" over any other possible labels?
Thanks
Joel
They should be build a pumped hydro storage system - like Dinorwig in Wales. These installations are so simple - I don't know why they're not more common.
Why does he gave a lightsabre with a cross-guard made out of two mini lightsabres? The cross-guard is to protect the fingers, not amputate them
If I could download a replacement "VTd" package, install it, and get the new features, that'd be great.
Ok that sounds like a reasonable project. When will start work on that? Or are you just complaining from the sidelines?
Yes yes yes we know. UX people are teh suck. Everyone's been saying so for months, so it much be the truth.
But noone is forcing you to use Gnome 3. If you don't like it, don't. STFU and use Mate, Cinnamon, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, fvwm or whatever the hell you want to use. Support them. Contribute. File bugs. Fix bugs. But don't sit here whining about a project you don't use. Use something else and get on with it.
Also why not have a little class? Gnome 3 isn't to your taste? Oh well never mind. But some people have done a lot of work on it, some of it very good work. So when they do a release - why do you have to dump on it? This is free software - offered to you gratis, by comitted free sofware developers. It doesn't have to be your choice, but at least have the manners to acknowlege their work.
Yup - it's not SystemD's fault for solving this problem first.
I personally would be very happy to see the problem solved in OpenRC, SysV, Upstart and all the rest - if they can make it happen, that is. I just wish a fraction of the effort that goes into systemd whining and bitching around here could go into participating in a distro, or contributing to one of these init systems.
Oh wait no - these people don't help anything they just complain.
Before you go round acting like the sky is falling, try educating yourselves about why this is necessary. This is not just a systemd problem, this is a problem for any init system that wants to support multi-seat, and sane switching between VTs:
Now you may say that OMG systemd is teh evil monolith!!1!!!, but before you do that understand that this has been an important feature that has been needed for a long time in any init system it just happened that SystemD solved it first.
+1!
So, you are telling us that we should be praising open source software just because it's open source? You guys have become so fanatic, you are blinded.
What makes you think I'm one of these guys? I have nothing to do with them. I don't even run Gnome 3 right now.
It's the polarised, non-technical, non-contributing circle-jerk that this whole conversation has become.
Some people here think there is a problem - one so bad that it fills them with anger. So being geeks you'd think they'd scramble to construct technical solutions. But noooooo... that would be far to useful. No instead they spend the whole time carping on web-forums.
Look - if you think there's a problem in the world, then the solution starts with you. Not the people over there in OSS project that you don't contribute to, or running the distribution you don't help with - it starts with you.
That's why I respect Mate, Cinnamon, LXDE, Xfce and Gnome3 folks. They're doing each doing good work - not all of it to my taste, but I respect the achievements. But I will never respect the spoutings of the giant crowd of trolls that now gather around this issue.
Look slashdot: If you don't like something stop being whiny luddite bitches and fix it. That's what open source is about.
And while you're at it stop trashing good work that's going on in other projects - even if you don't agree with the direction it's going in.
Simple! Trilithium is a nuclear inhibitor. Therefore any stars with excess trilithium would collapse at the moment of formation and we would never see them.
Coral Cache Link
Note that this is not yet Greenwald's "Fireworks show" - his promised grand finale was delayed from 4th July. From what I've gleaned, there will be a big-bang scoop naming specific names of US citizens - major public and political figures - who were wiretapped by the NSA. USG has claimed there will be some harm done, so the story has been delayed while the journalist team investigate.
Stay tuned. I can't wait.
Take a look at the sigrok project. We have rather a lot of experience with low cost lab gear.
For a long time the best option for a standalone scope has been the Das Oszi scopes, sold under the brand names Hantek, Protek and Voltcraft. As a bonus, a guy name tinhead has reverse engineered the schematics. Hopefully we'll have it supported in sigrok very soon.
There's also the SmartScope for ~$180.
It seems to me that an EME module would be much easier to crack than a full browser plugin. In which case I predict that the secret keys will be disclosed rather soon.
What science defines that an 1-year old is a person, but a zygote is not? Please. Link me a paper.
I'm a science enthusiast, but far too many science enthusiasts here try and make science speak on issues that it doesn't speak. Science is totally silent - it's work unrelated to these philosophical questions. The question of what make a person is purely philosophical. So if you try and make Science speak on questions of justice, personhood, ethics, it will respond with silence, silence, silence. The only way to respond to these questions is with a philosophical worldview, such as your philosophy of "Materialism", but don't conflate this philosophy together with scientific research - they are not the same thing.
Frankly, I don't understand how people can feel so sure that they are right when it comes to making life and death decisions concerning other people.
Quite so. It's sheer recklessness not to err on the side of caution here.
I'm not american, so I don't know much about the constitution.
And I fully support all people's rights. But what do you do when rights come into conflict? People are required give up many rights to serve their duting protect infants every day. Why is it any different for those unborn?
My argument about asking the child is obviously figurative - though you don't seem to understand. My point is who gave people like us to decide these people's fates. I argue that noone has the right to take a life whoever they may be. Any attempt to justify doing so ignores the rights and interests of the infant.
On what basis do you make that distinction between baby and foetus?
Well techically, I introduced a second factor that had thus-far been ignored (what is equitable for the infant), and argued (rhetorically) out that this factor takes moral greater priority than the one offerd by GP.
I havn't been any more or less logical than arth1 has. He just has a world-view, a philosophy, the name of which is "Materialism" - you may heard the term. It's the view that all is matter and matter is all (pluse energy, space, time etc.)
A lot of people here have that worldview. Some worldviews are consistent. Some are inconsistent. You can tell the inconsistent ones because they lead you to absurd conclusions: such as a human life only has life if it's self aware, therefore it's justified to kill 1-hour old infants.
The question then is do you have the thoughtfulness to challenge the received wisdom? And say to yourself - "if this is my philosophy and this is where it has lead me, could it be that my philosophy doesn't have all the answers". But it takes a degree of intellectual humility to challenge one's self this way.
Why? Explain how such a computer is any more special that it's components. Other than that it would be an intrigueing device. But at the end of the day, why does it have any special significance?
Well it's more expedient not to concern one's self with these things either way. It's kind-of a downer on the whole thing. It's not as if the child can complain.
If people are decide to kill infants this is simply wrong
The circumstances of the child's concept really don't have anything to do with it.
Also there seem to be quite a hatred of right wing people among American Slashdotters. They may well be arseholes, but that doesn't relieve of your duty to protect vulnerable infants.
Sure it's hard. Life IS hard. This isn't Disney.
But one thing I can wrap my head around: Ask the child whether it would be happy to have it's chance of life taken from it. Or ask them if they'd at least like a say in what their fate be.
Ask that question - ask yourself that question; and you can see that the issue really isn't all complex.