Your solution, while admirable, will not work because of FAKE SPAM. For example, some random luser might FAKE a post from M$, getting M$ into trouble. You aren't stopping spam, you're changing the nature of it.
Thinking further for you, you could amend your proposed law so that only verifiable spam that can be traced back to these companies will be fined. Then I would say that these companies who desire to advertise spam, will find an open SMTP server somewhere to send spam anonymously, even in the face of your better amended law. We'll be back to square one.
Do you see the problem we are dealing with here?
What we need, is your proposed level of political balls, and a TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION to unauthenticated emails. Both must have done. The technological solution is doable, but the political will is not there, and I foresee it not being there.
So please don't say I'm part of the problem. I protest because your law is not the whole solution.
The time is his. If the store would just return him the fair price of the Windows XP license, there would never have been a need to "waste the court's time" as it were.
This makes no sense. What do you mean by "different environment"? "su" runs a command as someone else. That's it. The fact that windows does it and also puts up a window telling you that it has done it, sould be different how?
That's like saying the hammer drives a nail into wood, is different from the hammer that drives a nail into wood, but also makes funny noises.
When the gravitational wave detection experiments detect the presence of gravitational waves (and I am sure they will, it's only a question of how good our instrumentation gets), then we can and will know the Cosmic Background Radiation is not the only horizon that affects our ablity to do cosmology. Then the idea of multiverses will come.
I am afraid I don't get what the problem is, other than it sounds like "double-speak". Are you saying that writing articles and telling people are ineffective? What kind of concrete action are you looking for?
This is making you look bad, Bruce. It appears that your quarrel with this guy is that he has made a weak defense of OSS. Work with him, show some faith. Show him how to make the defense against offenseive patents better.
Only label him false when all your positive advice is ignored.
No logical reader is going to be impressed that you've strung together these generalizations and topped it off with a non sequitor. Instead, you only persuade us that you hold certain grim views on youth and the IT sector. Please pay a visit to Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/
That's called statistical reasoning. Granting the truth of the generalization (which you should question), it's not hard to see young, naivity being strongly correlated with left-leaning as being dangerous, becuase young and naive means not having the real experience that affirms leftism - in other words, left-leaning as a dogma. That's dangerous. I suggest you learn how to argue to a sensible, intentional conclusion.
I agree, but I won't call it moral idealism, anymore than someone getting angry at a broken car is an engineering idealist.
The facts are that some engines can be fixed. Some people can change. To those people, perhaps scolding, cajoling or examples are good methods of reform.
And the fact is also that some engines cannot be fixed. Some people are obstinately rude/selfish/etc. There may be technological solutions to isolate these groups from the other, or there may not be.
So you see, I agree with you one everything EXCEPT calling it "moral idealism". Call it something else.
More elaboration of the objection: The man screaming at the car is guilty of no more idealism than expecting polite, useful conversation at a dinner party. Asking expectations to be amended, well, yes, that depends of context right? The man who just drove out from the mechanic probably has a right to be angry (but yes that's not fixing the problem.)
Re:Right tool for the job
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
That's not applying morals selectively, becuase RMS is arguing about the ethics of computer programming. He may have an opinion about things outside of that, but those opinions aren't necessarily very coherent (whose is?) Nevertheless he is to be lauded for thinking rigorously about the ethics of software licenses and making a statement about that alone.
My evaluation of the man is positive, becuase outside of his sphere of influence, he is a regular guy, while inside his sphere of influence, he thinks and applies his actions with courage and uncompromising ideals, from a very well thought out position.
That's all we can ever hope for, in a man, not a hero or god.
But none of the profanities are used in a profane context. That these "angry" words are also sexual shows how we neurologically wired, rather than sex per se.
Slashdot Mirror
Thinking further for you, you could amend your proposed law so that only verifiable spam that can be traced back to these companies will be fined. Then I would say that these companies who desire to advertise spam, will find an open SMTP server somewhere to send spam anonymously, even in the face of your better amended law. We'll be back to square one.
Do you see the problem we are dealing with here?
What we need, is your proposed level of political balls, and a TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION to unauthenticated emails. Both must have done. The technological solution is doable, but the political will is not there, and I foresee it not being there.
So please don't say I'm part of the problem. I protest because your law is not the whole solution.
Then if I refuse to honor the license, can I give it to my neighbor who does have a use for it?
I assign $5 million dollars to my socks. Is that allowed? Why or why not?
I sense a sign error in there somewhere.
The time is his. If the store would just return him the fair price of the Windows XP license, there would never have been a need to "waste the court's time" as it were.
But like him, you aint gonna have one, ever.
That's like saying the hammer drives a nail into wood, is different from the hammer that drives a nail into wood, but also makes funny noises.
When the gravitational wave detection experiments detect the presence of gravitational waves (and I am sure they will, it's only a question of how good our instrumentation gets), then we can and will know the Cosmic Background Radiation is not the only horizon that affects our ablity to do cosmology. Then the idea of multiverses will come.
The basis for multiverse theories is that our horizon for Electromagnetism or Gravity should be different.
Who manages the product life-cycle in open source? Red Hat, AT LEAST, that's who.
Perhaps one can use this - demand there be valid representatives like Bruce to sit on that panel of "watchers".
I am afraid I don't get what the problem is, other than it sounds like "double-speak". Are you saying that writing articles and telling people are ineffective? What kind of concrete action are you looking for?
Then you should go help him. Correct him on some of his views!
Only label him false when all your positive advice is ignored.
I humbly suggest that the word you are using is "unusual" or "one-of-a-kind". That's all. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment.
Yes, young and naive means they picked put the dogma from their mother's womb.
That's called statistical reasoning. Granting the truth of the generalization (which you should question), it's not hard to see young, naivity being strongly correlated with left-leaning as being dangerous, becuase young and naive means not having the real experience that affirms leftism - in other words, left-leaning as a dogma. That's dangerous. I suggest you learn how to argue to a sensible, intentional conclusion.
The facts are that some engines can be fixed. Some people can change. To those people, perhaps scolding, cajoling or examples are good methods of reform.
And the fact is also that some engines cannot be fixed. Some people are obstinately rude/selfish/etc. There may be technological solutions to isolate these groups from the other, or there may not be.
So you see, I agree with you one everything EXCEPT calling it "moral idealism". Call it something else.
More elaboration of the objection: The man screaming at the car is guilty of no more idealism than expecting polite, useful conversation at a dinner party. Asking expectations to be amended, well, yes, that depends of context right? The man who just drove out from the mechanic probably has a right to be angry (but yes that's not fixing the problem.)
My evaluation of the man is positive, becuase outside of his sphere of influence, he is a regular guy, while inside his sphere of influence, he thinks and applies his actions with courage and uncompromising ideals, from a very well thought out position.
That's all we can ever hope for, in a man, not a hero or god.
We are seeking information about entertainment. Big difference!
The amazing thing is, you are not confused. You just have not argued the point to conclusion - rate how likely is THAT.
Why don't we want a consensus builder in that job? Let her do her job, and make sure your opinion gets put on the table. Don't polarise the debate!
Einstein never worked on the bomb! His involvement was strictly limited to writing a letter, asking Roosevelt to develop the bomb.
I guess it's correct becuase the firewall rejects packets with the evil bit!
But none of the profanities are used in a profane context. That these "angry" words are also sexual shows how we neurologically wired, rather than sex per se.