Businesses don't buy political BS they sell it (through their middle men, WJC for one). As for Linux is it isn't political why are you even discussing it, doing so reveals the contested (and hence political) nature of the project. Linux is only a program in as far as bananas and bombs are just themselves. BTW Prior to capitalist restoration people in the PRC knew how to deal with people like you defenestrate a capitalist roader today kids!
I don't think this was an April fool, at least I didn't find it funny. RMS did make an important point which is lost in a lot of the GNU/Linux debates. Which is that fundamentally adding the prefix GNU isn't about crediting the FSF (though that should be done) but to restore the political context in Linux. Linux is just an OS like Solaris, *BSD etc and people who dislike the FSF promote is a just that, a better enginneered OS because of the magic of open source, GNU/Linux is a political statement about freedom
The first review seemed to get about the measure of the book, right there along beside "How to do Business like the Japanese". Jon Katz's review was bizarre, Gates' inner life is not the issue here (in fact it is quite refreshing that unlike Tony Blair or Bill Clinton, business leaders tend to fairly tight lipped about their private lives), we should be interested in how the development of technology will effect the economy, whether Gates likes being rich is irrelevant and boring
The journal which published Sokal's 'work' knew full well what it was doing and did so because it specialised in controversial writing. His paper (and subsequent book) were intended to show that postmodernists abused scientific language and theories. This may be true, though it seems somewhat petulant to attack writers for the creative use of metaphor. In any case, anyone who has studied higher mathematics should know that to master the language and technique of an advanced discipline takes time and effort, the same is true of postmodernism philosophy and related other humanities. If academics cut down every complex idea to a soundbite then they would be politicians.
I think this is a new low for the net-philosophy articles on slashdot, astrology, mysticism, sub-structualism and general verbiage.
"The imaginary gardens on my monitor often seem more real than the trees in my back yard. Most of the time I don't even notice the real trees."
"The nexus between nested levels of symbolic reality and the field of human subjectivity, the extensible domain of human consciousness, haunts me"
These sentences suggests more about the writer than it discusses the nominal topic, if we take reality as a mirror of cyberspace then we fall into the same conceit as the 19th century German professors who believed the real world was a mere reflection of the Mind. Moreover it mystifies the actual connection between cyberspace and the real world, that cyberspace is created, managed and controlled by capital (and its subsiduary, higher education). The "symbolic reality" so produced is not a neutral field for the exercise of human subjectivity but tends to level and attack difference and choice. And in doing it perpetuates and biologises capitalism, that Intel uses slave labour is a good illustration of this, perhaps along with the trees the writer doesn't deign to notice the poor race of Morlocks toiling so he can have his "symbolic reality".
The guy who posted the talkback article mentioned in the story deserved all the abuse he got, his opinions where pure FUD. How could any system (open source or not) be secure without preventing modification of the system programs and kernel, open source makes it slightly easier to produce bogus versions but not much. If my university let me install my own version of ntoskrnl.exe where all security functions have been modified to always return true, they deserve to be hacked
Corporate trend bandwagon at whose expense?
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 0
> I'm waiting for the day when we realize the > power of free software is in the technical > merits of what we produce > Surely this is exactly what Apple has realised, (pseudo) open source means they can get their os developed cheaper. The important day is when companies grasp that open source is about freedom (and start feeling scared).
But what point is there in saying modernism is based on the philosophy of Nietzsche without saying why, such a claim is very close to saying modernism equals nazism and more or less duplicates the basis of Larry Wall's attack on it. Of course Nietzsche differed from the pomos, for him subjectivity was exercised by a few supermen whereas Derrida goes even lower and refuses any universalism what so ever, just meaningless difference. As for/. I would have thought a technology website was a very good place to defend rationality
Nietzsche and Heidegger were early postmodernists, or at least they were highly influential in developing the thinking of the radical French intelligensia, Derrida in particular.
Simultaneously but unnoticed by the 'geek elite', a large numbers of Kurds were protesting the arrest of the leader of the PKK, Abdullah Ocalan. A number of Greek embassies were occupied and several protesters set themselves on fire.
I am well aware that this is covered in the mainstream media and wouldn't be appropiate for slashdot, but if protests against MS are to be lauded as the beginning of the battle against souless corporations surely this battle must begin with the most repellant face of capital, the actions of the imperialist countries particularly in the Middle East.
Whether or not you agree with the PKK, I believe the disparity between these two protests show why OSS will not become politically significant. OSS is based on consumption (and a particularly narrow type of consumption) therefore, unlike the struggle for a Kurdish state, it takes the existing conditions for the majority of people as a given.
It seems to me that this article is something of a rebuttal to conventional ideas about the formation of the internet and even to Eric S Raymond's idealization of the process of free software development, instead 'hackerism' is also a political statement about the direction and uses of technology.
Unlike the authors I am far less optimistic about the stability of this ethos, its birthplace, in general the universities have become increasingly commercialised and free software seems dominated by those who oppose 'ideological' purposes for its development like the FSF.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm wondering too
Spot on. Katz obfuscates the political nature
of conflict by making it into a technical matter
of whether grunts or bombers will do the business
best.
Businesses don't buy political BS they sell it
(through their middle men, WJC for one). As for
Linux is it isn't political why are you even
discussing it, doing so reveals the contested
(and hence political) nature of the project.
Linux is only a program in as far as bananas and
bombs are just themselves.
BTW Prior to capitalist restoration people in the
PRC knew how to deal with people like you
defenestrate a capitalist roader today kids!
I don't think this was an April fool, at least
I didn't find it funny. RMS did make an
important point which is lost in a lot of the
GNU/Linux debates. Which is that fundamentally
adding the prefix GNU isn't about crediting the
FSF (though that should be done) but to restore
the political context in Linux. Linux is just an
OS like Solaris, *BSD etc and people who dislike
the FSF promote is a just that, a better enginneered
OS because of the magic of open source, GNU/Linux is a political statement about freedom
The first review seemed to get about the measure
of the book, right there along beside "How to do
Business like the Japanese". Jon Katz's review
was bizarre, Gates' inner life is not the issue
here (in fact it is quite refreshing that unlike
Tony Blair or Bill Clinton, business leaders tend
to fairly tight lipped about their private lives),
we should be interested in how the development
of technology will effect the economy, whether
Gates likes being rich is irrelevant and boring
The journal which published Sokal's 'work' knew full well what it was doing and did so because it specialised in controversial writing. His paper (and subsequent book) were intended to show that postmodernists abused scientific language and theories. This may be true, though it seems somewhat petulant to attack writers for the creative use of metaphor.
In any case, anyone who has studied higher mathematics should know that to master the language and technique of an advanced discipline takes time and effort, the same is true of postmodernism philosophy and related other humanities.
If academics cut down every complex idea to a soundbite then they would be politicians.
I think this is a new low for the net-philosophy
articles on slashdot, astrology, mysticism,
sub-structualism and general verbiage.
"The imaginary gardens on my monitor often seem more real than the trees in my back yard. Most of the time I don't even notice the real trees."
"The nexus between nested levels of symbolic reality and the field of human subjectivity, the extensible domain of human consciousness, haunts me"
These sentences suggests more about the writer than it discusses the nominal topic, if we take reality as a mirror of cyberspace then we fall into the same conceit as the 19th century German professors who believed the real world was a mere reflection of the Mind. Moreover it mystifies the actual connection between cyberspace and the real world, that cyberspace is created, managed and controlled by capital (and its subsiduary, higher education). The "symbolic reality" so produced is not a neutral field for the exercise of human subjectivity but tends to level and attack difference and choice. And in doing it perpetuates and biologises capitalism, that Intel uses slave labour is a good illustration of this, perhaps along with the trees the writer doesn't deign to notice the poor race of Morlocks toiling so he can have his "symbolic reality".
The guy who posted the talkback article
mentioned in the story deserved all the abuse
he got, his opinions where pure FUD. How could
any system (open source or not) be secure without
preventing modification of the system programs
and kernel, open source makes it slightly easier
to produce bogus versions but not much. If my
university let me install my own version of
ntoskrnl.exe where all security functions have
been modified to always return true, they deserve to be hacked
> I'm waiting for the day when we realize the
> power of free software is in the technical
> merits of what we produce
>
Surely this is exactly what Apple has realised,
(pseudo) open source means they can get their os
developed cheaper. The important day is when
companies grasp that open source is about
freedom (and start feeling scared).
But what point is there in saying modernism /. I would have thought a technology website was a very good place to defend rationality
is based on the philosophy of Nietzsche without
saying why, such a claim is very close to saying
modernism equals nazism and more or less
duplicates the basis of Larry Wall's attack on it.
Of course Nietzsche differed from the pomos, for
him subjectivity was exercised by a few supermen
whereas Derrida goes even lower and refuses any
universalism what so ever, just meaningless difference.
As for
Nietzsche and Heidegger were early postmodernists,
or at least they were highly influential in
developing the thinking of the radical French
intelligensia, Derrida in particular.
Slakware 3.4 (at least) already does this
You're sick
Simultaneously but unnoticed by the 'geek elite', a large numbers of Kurds were protesting the arrest of the leader of the PKK, Abdullah Ocalan. A number of Greek embassies were occupied and several protesters set themselves on fire.
I am well aware that this is covered in the mainstream media and wouldn't be appropiate for slashdot, but if protests against MS are to be lauded as the beginning of the battle against souless corporations surely this battle must begin
with the most repellant face of capital, the actions of the imperialist countries particularly in the Middle East.
Whether or not you agree with the PKK, I believe the disparity between these two protests show why OSS will not become politically significant. OSS is based on consumption (and a particularly narrow type of consumption) therefore, unlike the struggle for a Kurdish state, it takes the existing conditions for the majority of people as a given.
It seems to me that this article is something of
a rebuttal to conventional ideas about the formation of the internet and even to Eric S Raymond's idealization of the process of free software development, instead 'hackerism' is also
a political statement about the direction and uses of technology.
Unlike the authors I am far less optimistic about the stability of this ethos, its birthplace, in
general the universities have become increasingly
commercialised and free software seems dominated
by those who oppose 'ideological' purposes for
its development like the FSF.