>It seems to me that in our country today it is becoming acceptable for everyone to lambast White Male Christians. All other groups have some kind of protected status, but if a White Male Christian does something then it's OK to scream at them about it. It's becoming so that no one can criticise anyone except WMCs. I'd like to know when *I* lost my right to speak out against things I don't believe are right. Since when do I have less of a right to say 'No, that's wrong don't do it.' than anyone else does to say 'Yes, that's a good idea, do it.'??
The difference I think is that in general the liberals (non WMC to use your terminology) aren't saying 'Do this' they're saying 'We want to be able to do this.' The conservative response is usually not 'We think this is wrong, so we're not going to do it.' or even 'We think this is wrong, and this is why we think you shouldn't do it' (ie. rational debate' but 'This is wrong, we're going to try to prevent you from doing it'. Not approving of something and still allowing others to do it is tolerance. Not approving of something and trying to keep others from doing it is not.
This is not to say that tolerance is good in all cases, which is why I've avoided any actual issues. I am not particularly tolerant of murder for example.
thejeff
(I just noticed that the little sig line at the bottom of the page is 'Baby on Board'.)
>It seems to me that in our country today it is becoming acceptable for everyone to lambast White Male Christians. All other groups have some kind of protected status, but if a White Male Christian does something then it's OK to scream at them about it. It's becoming so that no one can criticise anyone except WMCs. I'd like to know when *I* lost my right to speak out against things I don't believe are right. Since when do I have less of a right to say 'No, that's wrong don't do it.' than anyone else does to say 'Yes, that's a good idea, do it.'??
The difference I think is that in general the liberals (non WMC to use your terminology) aren't saying 'Do this' they're saying 'We want to be able to do this.' The conservative response is usually not 'We think this is wrong, so we're not going to do it.' or even 'We think this is wrong, and this is why we think you shouldn't do it' (ie. rational debate' but 'This is wrong, we're going to try to prevent you from doing it'. Not approving of something and still allowing others to do it is tolerance. Not approving of something and trying to keep others from doing it is not. This is not to say that tolerance is good in all cases, which is why I've avoided any actual issues. I am not particularly tolerant of murder for example. thejeff
What about distributing the binaries as usual, but including a pointer to a non-US site where the source could be downloaded legally. Would this fulfill the GPL's provision of a written offer to provide the source on request? This site can either get the source directly if development is not US, or through printed copies if necessary. I'm not sure what the legal status of a US company maintaining a non-US site for the distribution of crypto would be. I suspect that isn't allowed. But could funding be given to a third party? I'm also not sure what the GPL allows for third-party source distribution. Does the binary distributor have to be the one actually handling the source distribution, or is it sufficient for the source to be freely available? thejeff
Do you have to do the whole make world seven hour process for any update? Or is there an easy semi-automatic way to just rebuild and restart the services that were patched? Obviously a kernel patch would need a reboot, but why reboot for other updates? I think these questions are probaly why binary updates are popular. Using Debians apt-get I download updates weekly and spend about 5 minutes watching them install. (Could automate it, but I like to see what I'm going to change.) No reboot needed, all services are restarted etc. The only advantage I see to the make world approach is that everything can be built optimized for your system. But for most applications that isn't really significant. Where's the advantage?
Assuming that Christianity is true, and following the logic of your argument leads to the conclusion that not only should you tell me, but you should do everything in your power to convince me. After all no matter what annoyance or harm you cause me now, what awaits me if I am not saved is worse. It is this logic that justifies the Inquisition, early forced missionary work etc.
I don't find well-intentioned sufficient. Nor do I see any logical reason to stop this line of reasoning at polite conversation. The extreme conclusions are required by the extreme assumptions.
Perhaps more relevant to usual discussions here. Anyone who is convinced he is RIGHT and has a duty to show others the error of their ways is a danger to the freedom of others. Censorship, abortion many other issues stem from just this. "I believe that it is sinful to look at porn, therefore I am trying to help you by not letting you see it. I believe that sex for purposes other than reproduction is sinful, so I'm helping you by not allowing contraceptives. etc etc"
This isn't intended as a flame, just an explanation of why I don't think the well-intentioned, just trying to help you argument stands. Besides I've been informed of this many times in my life, I can, or could, I'm out of practice, hold my own in religious debates, and I still don't agree. I don't need to be told again. thejeff
I don't think self-incrimination applies. This would seem to fall more under laws dealing with documents than with speech. They can't legally make you talk, but they can make you turn over any relevant documents (with the appropriate warrants, subpoenas etc). This doesn't bother me. If they have to come to me with legal authority then I can defend myself. It's when they can access/monitor anything without my knowledge or consent that I object.
At this rate, 2.4 may be out before I switch to 2.2. I was working on it, but I munged my system badly, trying to upgrade to glibc by hand. I've installed Debian this time, and am still playing with configuration. Don't have much time to work on it. thejeff
>And what about this CPUID reg 2 - Processor Serial Number? I thought we agreed that that was not a Good Thing.
Like everyone else has said, lots of parts in computers have serial numbers, especially on higher level hardware. I've got no real problems with that. It's Intel's marketing, proclaiming it a way to track users and secure e-commerce, that is not a Good Thing.
I believe the only actual requirement for a Ph.D is an original contribution to the field. This usually takes the form of a thesis, but doesn't have to. I suspect the Linux kernel would qualify. thejeff
Slashdot Mirror
>It seems to me that in our country today it is becoming acceptable for everyone to lambast White Male Christians. All other groups have some kind of protected status, but if a White Male Christian does something then it's OK to scream at them about it. It's becoming so that no one can criticise anyone except WMCs. I'd like to know when *I* lost my right to speak out against things I don't believe are right. Since when do I have less of a right to say 'No, that's wrong don't do it.' than anyone else does to say 'Yes, that's a good idea, do it.'??
The difference I think is that in general the liberals (non WMC to use your terminology) aren't saying 'Do this' they're saying 'We want to be able to do this.' The conservative response is usually not 'We think this is wrong, so we're not going to do it.' or even 'We think this is wrong, and this is why we think you shouldn't do it' (ie. rational debate' but 'This is wrong, we're going to try to prevent you from doing it'.
Not approving of something and still allowing others to do it is tolerance. Not approving of something and trying to keep others from doing it is not.
This is not to say that tolerance is good in all cases, which is why I've avoided any actual issues. I am not particularly tolerant of murder for example.
thejeff
(I just noticed that the little sig line at the bottom of the page is 'Baby on Board'.)
>It seems to me that in our country today it is becoming acceptable for everyone to lambast White Male Christians. All other groups have some kind of protected status, but if a White Male Christian does something then it's OK to scream at them about it. It's becoming so that no one can criticise anyone except WMCs. I'd like to know when *I* lost my right to speak out against things I don't believe are right. Since when do I have less of a right to say 'No, that's wrong don't do it.' than anyone else does to say 'Yes, that's a good idea, do it.'??
The difference I think is that in general the liberals (non WMC to use your terminology) aren't saying 'Do this' they're saying 'We want to be able to do this.' The conservative response is usually not 'We think this is wrong, so we're not going to do it.' or even 'We think this is wrong, and this is why we think you shouldn't do it' (ie. rational debate' but 'This is wrong, we're going to try to prevent you from doing it'.
Not approving of something and still allowing others to do it is tolerance. Not approving of something and trying to keep others from doing it is not.
This is not to say that tolerance is good in all cases, which is why I've avoided any actual issues. I am not particularly tolerant of murder for example.
thejeff
What about distributing the binaries as usual, but including a pointer to a non-US site where the source could be downloaded legally. Would this fulfill the GPL's provision of a written offer to provide the source on request?
This site can either get the source directly if development is not US, or through printed copies if necessary.
I'm not sure what the legal status of a US company maintaining a non-US site for the distribution of crypto would be. I suspect that isn't allowed. But could funding be given to a third party?
I'm also not sure what the GPL allows for third-party source distribution. Does the binary distributor have to be the one actually handling the source distribution, or is it sufficient for the source to be freely available?
thejeff
Do you have to do the whole make world seven hour process for any update? Or is there an easy semi-automatic way to just rebuild and restart the services that were patched? Obviously a kernel patch would need a reboot, but why reboot for other updates?
I think these questions are probaly why binary updates are popular. Using Debians apt-get I download updates weekly and spend about 5 minutes watching them install. (Could automate it, but I like to see what I'm going to change.) No reboot needed, all services are restarted etc.
The only advantage I see to the make world approach is that everything can be built optimized for your system. But for most applications that isn't really significant.
Where's the advantage?
thejeff
Assuming that Christianity is true, and following the logic of your argument leads to the conclusion that not only should you tell me, but you should do everything in your power to convince me. After all no matter what annoyance or harm you cause me now, what awaits me if I am not saved is worse. It is this logic that justifies the Inquisition, early forced missionary work etc.
I don't find well-intentioned sufficient. Nor do I see any logical reason to stop this line of reasoning at polite conversation. The extreme conclusions are required by the extreme assumptions.
Perhaps more relevant to usual discussions here. Anyone who is convinced he is RIGHT and has a duty to show others the error of their ways is a danger to the freedom of others. Censorship, abortion many other issues stem from just this. "I believe that it is sinful to look at porn, therefore I am trying to help you by not letting you see it. I believe that sex for purposes other than reproduction is sinful, so I'm helping you by not allowing contraceptives. etc etc"
This isn't intended as a flame, just an explanation of why I don't think the well-intentioned, just trying to help you argument stands. Besides I've been informed of this many times in my life, I can, or could, I'm out of practice, hold my own in religious debates, and I still don't agree. I don't need to be told again.
thejeff
I don't think self-incrimination applies. This would seem to fall more under laws dealing with documents than with speech. They can't legally make you talk, but they can make you turn over any relevant documents (with the appropriate warrants, subpoenas etc).
This doesn't bother me. If they have to come to me with legal authority then I can defend myself. It's when they can access/monitor anything without my knowledge or consent that I object.
At this rate, 2.4 may be out before I switch to 2.2. I was working on it, but I munged my system badly, trying to upgrade to glibc by hand. I've installed Debian this time, and am still playing with configuration. Don't have much time to work on it.
thejeff
>And what about this CPUID reg 2 - Processor Serial Number? I thought we agreed that that was not a Good Thing.
Like everyone else has said, lots of parts in computers have serial numbers, especially on higher level hardware. I've got no real problems with that.
It's Intel's marketing, proclaiming it a way to track users and secure e-commerce, that is not a Good Thing.
thejeff
I believe the only actual requirement for a Ph.D is an original contribution to the field. This usually takes the form of a thesis, but doesn't have to. I suspect the Linux kernel would qualify.
thejeff