It's one thing to walk a mile for pleasure, when you have time to dedicate to it. It's a vastly different thing to walk to a mile when you only have a 45 minute lunch break, or you are expected to attend meetings at a multi-site company.
You misunderstood the thread. This thread is about the motives that RMS has for refuses to remove the joke. I am well aware of the nature of the joke, which is why I described it as a parody.
I've already gone over what I believe to be his motivations. Now can you explain, in your own words, why RMS refuses to remove it?
Premature anti-PC. Even the slightest whiff of an argument for political correctness can lead critics of PC down some reactionary path. When sometimes they are reacting to their own strawman they initially set up. For example RMS's comment(joke?) was intentionally (I assume) hyperbolic, a criticism of over-corrective political correctness culture and its suppressive nature.
The tone of his joke was of a parody. Now that RMS doesn't realize his own parody years later means he's at worse set up a strawman as distraction politics and at best he's an old man tilting at windmills.
Full disclosure, I do believe that we should be critical or even actively subvert attempts of a self-designed authority to unilaterally establish new cultural norms. Especially when it is clear that we do not universally share those new standards, or if we do in principle we may not all agree with the force or application.
But I'm torn...is it really the government's business to play nanny, and try to prevent stupid people from behaving stupidly?
One function of our civilization is to carry dumbasses on our backs in the hope they will eventually learn to participate usefully in society.
Libertarian leaning people don't want the government forcing people to do things, and individuals should be in charge of as many decisions about their own life as possible. Anarcho-capitalism don't want anyone regulating any business venture. I consider these two very different ideas that aren't coupled to each other, but are frequently used as the political platform of American Libertarians. (at least the outspoken ones online)
I'm more of the philosophy of: You should lead a horse to water. But you shouldn't force him to drink.
I think that's a false dilemma as Google doing bad thing and Microsoft doing bad things are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I'd recommend being skeptical of the motives of any business. Things can be great as long the business and customers have complementary desires and act in mutual benefit. Things go awry when there is a power imbalance in a relationship, especially if it is possible to act for a short term gain or for an increase in power.
Microsoft's long history makes them untrustworthy. I think we should be very skeptical of relying on any technology out of Redmond, and view it as a potential trap.
It seems obvious that MS would like every Linux computer to have a copy of Windows installed. And for people to run their favorite Linux application along side Office 365 or whatever. I can't really blame them, it's a reasonable business strategy. But once MS has power over a market they aren't likely to act in their customer's best interests. Ultimately us consumers need to be cautious of what bargains we strike.
A flying vehicle that can be stored in a small garage or parking structure. The key being a flying vehicle that operates in urban areas and does not need an airport.
I have to pay a tax for every tree I take off my property. But it's zoned lumber agricultural and if I never take a tree off I pay the minimum property tax. (which is a few hundred bucks a year for the several acres that I have)
Of course it's a forest and not in the middle of a major city. So totally not related to the original point.
One space should be used between words. Otherwise, it may cause unexpected problems with search, sorting, etc.
Yup, it's super hard to handle multiple spaces in a row. Imagine how difficult it might be in a low-level language where you have to code up every little detail?
#include <stdio.h> #include <ctype.h>
int main() {
int c, words = 0;
while (!feof(stdin)) {
while(isspace(c = getchar())) ;
if (c == EOF) break;
words++;
while((c = getchar()) != EOF && !isspace(c)) ;
}
printf("words: %d\n", words);
return 0; }
Why print paper money when it could be used for something useful like toilet paper?
Why mint coins when you could be building industry with the wasted metal?
Here's the thing about a free market. There is no guarantee that resources will be allocated to the most practical long term goods. Because of the way the system works we normally see lots of short term decisions based on what is valuable and not what is practical.
There is an old con artist trick that easily predates the Internet. Someone approaches you with a "winning" lotto ticket. They say they can't claim the prize themselves because they owe the government money. If you'd pay their fines they could claim the prize and they are willing to offer you a substantial share in return.
This is retold in various ways, like they have a winning stub for a race horse. But the winnings are too large to pay in cash and the race track requires a wire transfer. But the con will ask for some money to open a bank account. Then this can easily go to where he convinces you that the winnings should go into your bank account, but he says he doesn't want to get ripped off so maybe you should pay him some of it first just prove that you're honest. Like maybe $200. (or whatever is the typical maximum you can pull from an ATM at once)
That people can do this anonymously and over the internet makes it far more scaleable of a con. But it's a very old con. The Internet just makes everything BETTER.
It's harder to say such broad things about the US because each state handles things differently. But in California I've definitely paid an electronic waste recycling fee on some of my electronics.
Lead acid batteries are kept out of the landfills by federal regulation. See Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 266, Subsection G. Most of what is in there has to do with how states and businesses must conduct their operations. And such a regulatory document wouldn't be able on its own to add a tax. It could probably limit what kinds of fees a state might charge, but I can't think of any examples.
For emergency services it's really more like.1% - 1% of vehicles. Sure out of millions of vehicles is certainly a large number, but it's fair to call that "niche" as in you're not going to be selling these to general consumers. They will be purpose built fleet vehicles often made on contract.
I think electrics won't displace off-road trucks either. But if I have to go to a special place to buy one instead of a Jeep or Land Rover dealership that is not really the end of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
It's one thing to walk a mile for pleasure, when you have time to dedicate to it. It's a vastly different thing to walk to a mile when you only have a 45 minute lunch break, or you are expected to attend meetings at a multi-site company.
because not every piece of software in a Linux distribution's base install is from GNU.
We don't have time to list the author of every component of the system in the name.
Is it his project? I saw some responses where the community at large thought they owned it collectively and that decisions should be more democratic.
It's Linus not RMS that claims to be a "benevolent dictator".
You misunderstood the thread. This thread is about the motives that RMS has for refuses to remove the joke. I am well aware of the nature of the joke, which is why I described it as a parody.
I've already gone over what I believe to be his motivations. Now can you explain, in your own words, why RMS refuses to remove it?
Premature anti-PC. Even the slightest whiff of an argument for political correctness can lead critics of PC down some reactionary path. When sometimes they are reacting to their own strawman they initially set up. For example RMS's comment(joke?) was intentionally (I assume) hyperbolic, a criticism of over-corrective political correctness culture and its suppressive nature.
The tone of his joke was of a parody. Now that RMS doesn't realize his own parody years later means he's at worse set up a strawman as distraction politics and at best he's an old man tilting at windmills.
Full disclosure, I do believe that we should be critical or even actively subvert attempts of a self-designed authority to unilaterally establish new cultural norms. Especially when it is clear that we do not universally share those new standards, or if we do in principle we may not all agree with the force or application.
But I'm torn...is it really the government's business to play nanny, and try to prevent stupid people from behaving stupidly?
One function of our civilization is to carry dumbasses on our backs in the hope they will eventually learn to participate usefully in society.
Libertarian leaning people don't want the government forcing people to do things, and individuals should be in charge of as many decisions about their own life as possible. Anarcho-capitalism don't want anyone regulating any business venture. I consider these two very different ideas that aren't coupled to each other, but are frequently used as the political platform of American Libertarians. (at least the outspoken ones online)
I'm more of the philosophy of: You should lead a horse to water. But you shouldn't force him to drink.
As a general rule of thumb, "I am offended" is not a good reason to remove speech.
Keeping something out of misguided principle (or perhaps spite) is not a good reason either.
I'd be concerned by Google.
I think that's a false dilemma as Google doing bad thing and Microsoft doing bad things are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I'd recommend being skeptical of the motives of any business. Things can be great as long the business and customers have complementary desires and act in mutual benefit. Things go awry when there is a power imbalance in a relationship, especially if it is possible to act for a short term gain or for an increase in power.
Embrace, extend, and extinguish -- United States v. Microsoft Corp., 2001
Microsoft's long history makes them untrustworthy. I think we should be very skeptical of relying on any technology out of Redmond, and view it as a potential trap.
It seems obvious that MS would like every Linux computer to have a copy of Windows installed. And for people to run their favorite Linux application along side Office 365 or whatever. I can't really blame them, it's a reasonable business strategy. But once MS has power over a market they aren't likely to act in their customer's best interests. Ultimately us consumers need to be cautious of what bargains we strike.
Hey look, grandpa still carries a wallet. And I don't mean a bitcoin wallet.
A flying vehicle that can be stored in a small garage or parking structure.
The key being a flying vehicle that operates in urban areas and does not need an airport.
I have to pay a tax for every tree I take off my property. But it's zoned lumber agricultural and if I never take a tree off I pay the minimum property tax. (which is a few hundred bucks a year for the several acres that I have)
Of course it's a forest and not in the middle of a major city. So totally not related to the original point.
One space should be used between words. Otherwise, it may cause unexpected problems with search, sorting, etc.
Yup, it's super hard to handle multiple spaces in a row. Imagine how difficult it might be in a low-level language where you have to code up every little detail?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <ctype.h>
int main() {
int c, words = 0;
while (!feof(stdin)) {
while(isspace(c = getchar())) ;
if (c == EOF) break;
words++;
while((c = getchar()) != EOF && !isspace(c)) ;
}
printf("words: %d\n", words);
return 0;
}
Why print paper money when it could be used for something useful like toilet paper?
Why mint coins when you could be building industry with the wasted metal?
Here's the thing about a free market. There is no guarantee that resources will be allocated to the most practical long term goods. Because of the way the system works we normally see lots of short term decisions based on what is valuable and not what is practical.
We need some bean-counter friendly environmentalism.
But new developers bring in the cash.
I for one hail our new corporatocratic overlords.
There is an old con artist trick that easily predates the Internet. Someone approaches you with a "winning" lotto ticket. They say they can't claim the prize themselves because they owe the government money. If you'd pay their fines they could claim the prize and they are willing to offer you a substantial share in return.
This is retold in various ways, like they have a winning stub for a race horse. But the winnings are too large to pay in cash and the race track requires a wire transfer. But the con will ask for some money to open a bank account. Then this can easily go to where he convinces you that the winnings should go into your bank account, but he says he doesn't want to get ripped off so maybe you should pay him some of it first just prove that you're honest. Like maybe $200. (or whatever is the typical maximum you can pull from an ATM at once)
That people can do this anonymously and over the internet makes it far more scaleable of a con. But it's a very old con. The Internet just makes everything BETTER.
Si pecuniam haberem, panem emerem.
(est aliqualiter rationem)
If the US does similar legislation then suddenly the Internet will align to us and people will figure out new ways to make money.
Mandating personal privacy has cost you free shitty email service.
It's harder to say such broad things about the US because each state handles things differently. But in California I've definitely paid an electronic waste recycling fee on some of my electronics.
Lead acid batteries are kept out of the landfills by federal regulation. See Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 266, Subsection G. Most of what is in there has to do with how states and businesses must conduct their operations. And such a regulatory document wouldn't be able on its own to add a tax. It could probably limit what kinds of fees a state might charge, but I can't think of any examples.
We should probably regulate the disposal of car batteries so they don't go into land fills.
You know like we've done with lead acid batteries found in nearly every current automobile.
For emergency services it's really more like .1% - 1% of vehicles. Sure out of millions of vehicles is certainly a large number, but it's fair to call that "niche" as in you're not going to be selling these to general consumers. They will be purpose built fleet vehicles often made on contract.
I think electrics won't displace off-road trucks either. But if I have to go to a special place to buy one instead of a Jeep or Land Rover dealership that is not really the end of the world.
So if we had -15-20 things of a similar scale to human respiration or concrete manufacture we'd have the whole picture of our CO2 output?
And this gives us perspective how?