Mac users are used to paying for stuff. Look how many of them pay for TextMate -- I'm sure it's great and all, but the idea of paying money for a text editor grates on me. I guess, if you bought a Mac in the first place, you're in a self selecting group of people with money to throw around.
Linux users are probably so grateful to be tossed a few scraps of gaming, they'll pay.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. From the point of view of a shrew, an owl's talons aren't a good idea.
Hypothetically, a squid self-portrait could frighten off, say, shrimp-eating fish, without frightening off shrimp -- e.g. if the fish had better eyesight than the shrimp, or the shrimp were more smell-oriented, etc.
TFA doesn't use the word "theory" (well, it does, but in relation to a different hypothesis).
But, even if it did, "theory" in informal English usage, has pretty much the same weight and meaning as "conjecture" or "hypothesis". And "theory" is more commonly used, because, frankly, if you're not talking to a fellow scientist or writing a paper, it's just pretentious.
Just because ID proponents misrepresent the "theory" of evolution, doesn't mean we all have to abandon the common use of words.
I'm not thinking making a homemade scarecrow is a positive evolutionary adaptation.
Why not? Scarecrows are useful.
I can well imagine an organism creating artifices that deter competitors from feeding on its food source. I can also well imagine the intermediate steps in the evolution of such an adaptation.
I happily use mine on a daily basis and have yet to come across a wall.
I bet you have, but I bet you walked away from the wall without thinking about it. I bet you've at some point, when using an iPhone app, thought to yourself "Hmm, it sucks that I can't just tap there and have that happen", then shrugged your shoulders and got on with what you're doing -- because the software is what it is, and that's how the world works.
This is exactly what started RMS on his path. The story goes that he and his colleagues where fed up with hanging around in the printer room waiting for their print jobs to appear; if only the print queue would send you an email when it's done! Except, instead of shrugging, and saying "Oh well, it doesn't email you, and that's how it is", RMS did what computer users were used to doing at the time -- he set about modifying the system to his needs. But, when he went looking for the source code for the print driver, he couldn't find it, and when he asked for it, the vendor refused.
RMS was shocked not to have that freedom to modify his system.
The world at large has got accustomed to not having that freedom. They don't hit the walls because they're so used to the walls they steer away.
You'll also have noticed the walls every time/. posts that an app has been refused. Often it's an app you wouldn't have installed. But that's not the point, in exactly the same way as it's not the point if B&N refuses to supply a book you weren't intending to buy.
But even if I did yearn for it, what aspect of free software would have given me tethering if it wasn't an option? I could not have written it myself and unless the "free software movement" gave me a working solution that was stable and reliable, I'd still be waiting for it because I could not have coded it myself.
You could have paid someone to code it for you, or if you didn't want to pony up for the whole project, you could have joined a pledge bank to raise a bounty to get it done. Typing code directly into an IDE is not the only way to make code exist.
As you note, tethering isn't a great example because of the phone companies' interest, but for "features you covet" in general, this works.
Most people aren't aware that they're making a choice.
Many people wish their computers would work in trivially different ways (such that a coder with access to the source would hack it in for a $5 tip) but can't conceive of a software ecosystem in which 'take it or leave it' isn't the model.
But how can the freedom to choose not include the freedom for people to choose an Apple style 'walled garden'? I am absolutely certain that Stallman doesn't know what I want better than I do.
I don't believe Stallman would dispute your freedom to make that choice.
He would just regret that you have done so.
He would also contend that most people sleepwalk into that choice without knowing the ins and outs of the factors.
It's bad because YOU DON'T NEED PROGRAMMING KNOWLEDGE TO PROGRAM A COMPUTER (indirectly).
You can pay, or otherwise persuade, someone with programming knowledge to do it for you. But if *they* don't have access to the source code, they can't help you.
The world does need extremists like Stallman -- because there will also be extremists arguing the opposite case, and the two cancel each other out.
By analogy -- when I was at school, many of my classmates were fairly extreme Welsh nationalists. I disagreed with them too, and I still believe their absolutist stance on the Welsh language is going too far. However, I believe the status the Welsh language has right now is about right. If it hadn't been for the efforts of the pro-Welsh extremists from the 1950s onwards, the language would be all but dead today.
If RMS and the FSF protested at Jobs' funeral...... *that* would be like Fred Phelps and the scum from the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at Jobs' funeral.
That being said, I like to think I agree with Stallman in many ways, yet I own an iPhone and an iPad and really haven't felt constrained in any of the ways I should be constrained.
I liken the iPhone to being imprisoned in a really big, comfortable enclosure. "Walled garden" is exactly the right metaphor.
When something occurs to me that's desirable, technically achievable, but forbidden by locked-down hardware, software, contracts, etc., I think of the bit in The Truman Show, where his yacht bumps into the horizon. Don't you yearn for WiFi tethering? BONK!
I think the next line is more telling than that quote - "People were using Gnu with Linux added, but didn’t know it." No, they were using Linux with Gnu added...
... but which is the important part.
On the Solaris machines at my university ~1993, one of the admins had compiled all the GNU tools into/usr/gnu/bin, and it was very handy because gzip was better than compress, GNU date was *way* more capable than Sun date, and so on.
When I installed Linux, sure I needed the kernel to be there -- but it was the GNU userland that I was actually experiencing directly, and the main reason I stayed.
Nowadays, I use Cygwin more than Linux. The front end is more important to me than the backend.
Stallman's worst defect (other than his nonconformist appearance and manner -- which are both fine by me, but not great qualities in a spokesman) is his faith in the general intelligence of the world at large.
He leaves things unsaid, because he assumes that the audience is paying proper attention, and reading between the lines.
Case in point:
Stallman's ideal vision of a world where every user is a programmer that reprograms their devices at will isn't happening for too many reasons to list
You don't need to be a programmer to program a computer. My boss isn't a programmer, yet he can program a computer simply by paying me money and telling me what to do. My mum isn't a programmer, but she can program a computer by asking me a favour. Stallman assumes people realise that.
Stallman should remember that he isn't just any random character fighting for software freedom. He's the self-appointed publicity figure for open source movement,
Stallman is the self-appointed publicity figure for the Free Software Foundation.
"Open Source" is not a label preferred by the FSF, because it de-emphasises freedom.
I sort of agree that Stallman isn't a very palatable spokesman - but on the other hand, the FSF has an uncompromising message, and requires an uncompromising figurehead.
I'm in the middle of trying to throw together a band, and finding a drummer isn't easy (if you don't already know one, and you're not willing to pay one).
What comments do you have about working with a drum machine, especially in a live setting?
On the one hand, I agree with you. It would be very easy for this kind of thing to turn the Internet back into AOL. That would be bad.
On the other hand, it's a really cool way of squeezing a better experience out of cheap hardware.
So, I think that rather than dismissing it out of hand, we should be thinking of ways to protect ourselves and others from lockin and walled gardens, without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
On SPOF though - 1. Amazon has a *huge* interest in keeping its cloud services up and running. Downtime is likely to be negligible. 2. From what I understand, the Silk browser can fall back to a more conventional mode of operation.
My stance on this is:
- Read and understand Amazon's privacy policy
- Decide how much you trust their security
- Put your Silk browser into client-only mode when you think it's appropriate -- e.g. when doing online banking.
Slashdot Mirror
Group selection has been debunked. Only genes that reproduce have effects. The end.
How do you account for the existence of non-breeding worker ants?
Braid is meh at best.
You lose the game of game criticism.
Mac users are used to paying for stuff. Look how many of them pay for TextMate -- I'm sure it's great and all, but the idea of paying money for a text editor grates on me. I guess, if you bought a Mac in the first place, you're in a self selecting group of people with money to throw around.
Linux users are probably so grateful to be tossed a few scraps of gaming, they'll pay.
Woosh.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. From the point of view of a shrew, an owl's talons aren't a good idea.
Hypothetically, a squid self-portrait could frighten off, say, shrimp-eating fish, without frightening off shrimp -- e.g. if the fish had better eyesight than the shrimp, or the shrimp were more smell-oriented, etc.
TFA doesn't use the word "theory" (well, it does, but in relation to a different hypothesis).
But, even if it did, "theory" in informal English usage, has pretty much the same weight and meaning as "conjecture" or "hypothesis". And "theory" is more commonly used, because, frankly, if you're not talking to a fellow scientist or writing a paper, it's just pretentious.
Just because ID proponents misrepresent the "theory" of evolution, doesn't mean we all have to abandon the common use of words.
I'm not thinking making a homemade scarecrow is a positive evolutionary adaptation.
Why not? Scarecrows are useful.
I can well imagine an organism creating artifices that deter competitors from feeding on its food source.
I can also well imagine the intermediate steps in the evolution of such an adaptation.
I happily use mine on a daily basis and have yet to come across a wall.
I bet you have, but I bet you walked away from the wall without thinking about it. I bet you've at some point, when using an iPhone app, thought to yourself "Hmm, it sucks that I can't just tap there and have that happen", then shrugged your shoulders and got on with what you're doing -- because the software is what it is, and that's how the world works.
This is exactly what started RMS on his path. The story goes that he and his colleagues where fed up with hanging around in the printer room waiting for their print jobs to appear; if only the print queue would send you an email when it's done! Except, instead of shrugging, and saying "Oh well, it doesn't email you, and that's how it is", RMS did what computer users were used to doing at the time -- he set about modifying the system to his needs. But, when he went looking for the source code for the print driver, he couldn't find it, and when he asked for it, the vendor refused.
RMS was shocked not to have that freedom to modify his system.
The world at large has got accustomed to not having that freedom. They don't hit the walls because they're so used to the walls they steer away.
You'll also have noticed the walls every time /. posts that an app has been refused. Often it's an app you wouldn't have installed. But that's not the point, in exactly the same way as it's not the point if B&N refuses to supply a book you weren't intending to buy.
But even if I did yearn for it, what aspect of free software would have given me tethering if it wasn't an option? I could not have written it myself and unless the "free software movement" gave me a working solution that was stable and reliable, I'd still be waiting for it because I could not have coded it myself.
You could have paid someone to code it for you, or if you didn't want to pony up for the whole project, you could have joined a pledge bank to raise a bounty to get it done. Typing code directly into an IDE is not the only way to make code exist.
As you note, tethering isn't a great example because of the phone companies' interest, but for "features you covet" in general, this works.
Most people aren't aware that they're making a choice.
Many people wish their computers would work in trivially different ways (such that a coder with access to the source would hack it in for a $5 tip) but can't conceive of a software ecosystem in which 'take it or leave it' isn't the model.
BBC1? The home of "Strictly Come Dancing" (the source material for America's "Dancing with the Stars")?
BBC4 isn't stupid, but they keep hinting at closing it down for not being popular enough.
But how can the freedom to choose not include the freedom for people to choose an Apple style 'walled garden'? I am absolutely certain that Stallman doesn't know what I want better than I do.
I don't believe Stallman would dispute your freedom to make that choice.
He would just regret that you have done so.
He would also contend that most people sleepwalk into that choice without knowing the ins and outs of the factors.
Exactly what restrictions do you think Stallman wants to impose on you?
I don't think he's ever proposed to forbid non-free software.
He's only ever sought to persuade you that it's not in your interest to buy it.
The only restriction he's ever imposed on *anyone*, is, through the GPL, to restrict you from removing the freedom from code that is free.
It's bad because YOU DON'T NEED PROGRAMMING KNOWLEDGE TO PROGRAM A COMPUTER (indirectly).
You can pay, or otherwise persuade, someone with programming knowledge to do it for you. But if *they* don't have access to the source code, they can't help you.
The world does need extremists like Stallman -- because there will also be extremists arguing the opposite case, and the two cancel each other out.
By analogy -- when I was at school, many of my classmates were fairly extreme Welsh nationalists. I disagreed with them too, and I still believe their absolutist stance on the Welsh language is going too far. However, I believe the status the Welsh language has right now is about right. If it hadn't been for the efforts of the pro-Welsh extremists from the 1950s onwards, the language would be all but dead today.
If RMS and the FSF protested at Jobs' funeral... ... *that* would be like Fred Phelps and the scum from the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at Jobs' funeral.
That being said, I like to think I agree with Stallman in many ways, yet I own an iPhone and an iPad and really haven't felt constrained in any of the ways I should be constrained.
I liken the iPhone to being imprisoned in a really big, comfortable enclosure. "Walled garden" is exactly the right metaphor.
When something occurs to me that's desirable, technically achievable, but forbidden by locked-down hardware, software, contracts, etc., I think of the bit in The Truman Show, where his yacht bumps into the horizon. Don't you yearn for WiFi tethering? BONK!
I think the next line is more telling than that quote - "People were using Gnu with Linux added, but didn’t know it." No, they were using Linux with Gnu added...
... but which is the important part.
On the Solaris machines at my university ~1993, one of the admins had compiled all the GNU tools into /usr/gnu/bin, and it was very handy because gzip was better than compress, GNU date was *way* more capable than Sun date, and so on.
When I installed Linux, sure I needed the kernel to be there -- but it was the GNU userland that I was actually experiencing directly, and the main reason I stayed.
Nowadays, I use Cygwin more than Linux. The front end is more important to me than the backend.
Stallman's worst defect (other than his nonconformist appearance and manner -- which are both fine by me, but not great qualities in a spokesman) is his faith in the general intelligence of the world at large.
He leaves things unsaid, because he assumes that the audience is paying proper attention, and reading between the lines.
Case in point:
Stallman's ideal vision of a world where every user is a programmer that reprograms their devices at will isn't happening for too many reasons to list
You don't need to be a programmer to program a computer. My boss isn't a programmer, yet he can program a computer simply by paying me money and telling me what to do. My mum isn't a programmer, but she can program a computer by asking me a favour. Stallman assumes people realise that.
Stallman should remember that he isn't just any random character fighting for software freedom. He's the self-appointed publicity figure for open source movement,
Stallman is the self-appointed publicity figure for the Free Software Foundation.
"Open Source" is not a label preferred by the FSF, because it de-emphasises freedom.
I sort of agree that Stallman isn't a very palatable spokesman - but on the other hand, the FSF has an uncompromising message, and requires an uncompromising figurehead.
affordable, functional, desirable
Two out of three ain't bad.
(I'm a reasonably well paid programmer who owns a Mac Mini, and would rather enjoy having a grown-up Mac but can't justify the cost.)
I'm in the middle of trying to throw together a band, and finding a drummer isn't easy (if you don't already know one, and you're not willing to pay one).
What comments do you have about working with a drum machine, especially in a live setting?
Do you still use one?
I'm in two minds.
On the one hand, I agree with you. It would be very easy for this kind of thing to turn the Internet back into AOL. That would be bad.
On the other hand, it's a really cool way of squeezing a better experience out of cheap hardware.
So, I think that rather than dismissing it out of hand, we should be thinking of ways to protect ourselves and others from lockin and walled gardens, without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I agree about the security/privacy implications.
On SPOF though -
1. Amazon has a *huge* interest in keeping its cloud services up and running. Downtime is likely to be negligible.
2. From what I understand, the Silk browser can fall back to a more conventional mode of operation.
My stance on this is:
- Read and understand Amazon's privacy policy
- Decide how much you trust their security
- Put your Silk browser into client-only mode when you think it's appropriate -- e.g. when doing online banking.
No it doesn't.
I pay you $5 for a painting. Then I sell it for $10 (to a buyer who wouldn't have bought directly from you).
We've both gained $5, we've both got some costs to take out of that. Neither of us loses.