I don't believe that the majority genuinely do want power.
At the least they want freedom, which is power over themselves or, to put it another way, the state of not being in someone else's power. Either way, the dynamics of power is one of the most important aspects of society.
Look at any school playground and you'll see kids doing exactly the same pecking-order activities as any other primate. We don't lose that urge to be higher up the pile when we get older. THAT's why people stay in dead-end jobs: they fear the loss of what little power/freedom they do have. Some people don't have that fear and can break out of the grind in one way or another. It may not be rocket science but understanding your position is not always the key to doing something about it.
However, I do agree that the problem people are the ones for whom the power drive has gone too far and that normal people are often blind-sided by them simply because they can't imagine anyone being like that. But then, any of the four drives I listed produces "problem people" when taken too far: sex - rapists, power - dictators, money - rail barons, security - survival nuts. For some, of course, more than one can get out of hand.
Stallman himself might not be a Communist, but to me there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that a number of European Linux users in particular are.
Well, so what? Are you saying that's any worse than the fact that a number of American Linux users may have voted for Bush?
Communism and capitalism are as bad as each other and are based on the same flawed idea: that people want to to the right thing. In communism this is expressed as a faith that they will work together and that people like Stalin will never appear while in capitalism it is expressed as a faith that they will allow free competitition and that people like Gates will never appear (indeed it is based on the idea that aristocrats like the Gates family will have been eliminated from the system before you start). Both are bullshit and neither work anything like as advertised, both in reality lead to mass deaths to support the elite ruling class and their interests.
Of course, on the other hand, nothing else works either; all forms of government tend to degenerate to the same state, chiefly because all forms of government are made up of people and people always want the same things - security, power, money, sex - in some combination. Sociopaths like Blair, Bush, or Mugabee will always rise to the top eventually, all just heads of the same hydra.
...Thus the massive rush to cancel their accounts with ISPs; the huge number of brand new computers in the landfills a few days after Christmas as people realize their true awfulness; the ease of connecting to a dial-up account with huge modem banks and no callers; The high connection speeds at thousands of (un)popular sites without a soul trying to download the new content-of-the-day...
I didn't say they were consistant. Most people hate their jobs, but they don't quit, in fact they often try to get promoted by working harder.
I'm not in the US, so people here aren't suffering the kind of moral panic you seem to have succumbed to.
I'm not in the US either, but that doesn't mean that dickheads don't bother me.
There is nothing wrong with showing the customers where meat comes from, even the children. If they can't handle that truth, they shouldn't be eating meat in the first place.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it.
I'm not a vegetarian, I eat meat on a daily basis, but I believe in treating the animals well in life, killing them quickly and slaughtering them efficiently.
I agree, but it still has nothing to do with being a dickwad. I'm happy that doctors perform autopsies and I've seen one, but I don't expect to see one while browsing a webpage about asprin. Just as I'm happy that homosexuals do various things with their arses but I'm not happy when some joker redirects a page to Mr goats.cx.
Oh and by the way, the word 'cunt' is the most widely used expletive in my language (only it's an adjective around here) it's bandied about by everybody both in real life and on television day and night, even in polite conversation. It lost it's power to shock twenty years ago.
People hate the web? That's the first time I've heard that.
You need to talk to more non-/.ers then. People hate worrying that when their kids go to a site something nasty will popup instead. They hate all sorts of other things about it too.
I see this as a simple and effective way to get rid of unwanted guests.
By attacking unsuspecting people that followed a link which they had no idea led off-site (if they even understand the concept)? Why not just block the site? Why not ask them to pay? Why not just stop being an asshole?
He is fully entitled to put his views online just as the company is fully entitled to link to the content. If the company doesn't want people to see a slaughterhouse (I wonder why?), they are free to remove the link.
And Namco is entitled to sue the moron for copying their game. This argument was between beanie-brain and fruitfuckers or whatever they're called; there was no need to drag the customers into the firing line.
This is not jackassery this is legitimate protest.
Are there any lawyers in the audience who know exactly how the "obviousness" requirement is treated in courts of law these days?
IANAL but the answer seems to be that, since the judge is not going to be a programmer, the concept is worthless. Nothing is obvious when the whole subject is a mystery to you.
"Remember that nut that sat beside you on the bus? They guy that had a water-powered car but was too afraid to go public in case the oil companies came after him? You remember how glad you were when your stop came and you got off? This morning, though, when you walk into town for the Sunday papers, today, that nut is everyone you meet!
You've just woken up in....The Blogosphere! De-de-de-de, de-de-de-de.....
The answer to the article's question is: nothing; there's no point in wading through the output of blogs, so don't bother aggregating it; stick the whole lot in the bin. There, wasn't that easy?
Lloyds is basically saying that Linux is dangerous to use. If they said it was safe, who would buy their insurance? So, what's the truth? Well, whatever it is there's no point in asking Lloyds.
I think you are looking in the wrong place. What I'm getting at is that producing code which is then used by people like Gates to make produces which are then sold to make a profit which is ploughed into lobbying for software patents to prevent you and me writing new code is non-alturistic at about 4-ply, as it were. It may seem alturistic at first but in fact you are helping those who ultimately are buying the laws to prevent future code, and maybe even your past code given how the courts work if you're rich enough.
The GPL at least gets some value back out and the network of reliance it makes between companies that use GPL code make it harder for any one to attack the whole concept of free coders.
Gates once said that he could not see any reason why there should be non-Microsoft software in the world. To produce code for people like that without strings attached seems to be foolish in the long run, if you believe that everyone should be allowed the freedom to write code.
You're confusing altriusme with a philosophy of achieving a 'greater good' through not being altruistic.
I don't think I am, I'm trying to take a strictly practical stance that a 100% neutral alturism contains, in the current legal framework the seeds of its own destruction, and that BSD, GPL, and every other Free licence will go down together if we lose.
Nothing prevents him from continuing to pound away at BSD code until the day he dies. It, just like GPL'd code, is open forever.
So you've missed twenty years of Microsoft (and others) lobbying for software patents to stop people coding, then?
That's exactly what software patents are for; copyright already protected code from simple re-use (and that was largely because of lobbying by Gates), the only extra protection patents give is to prevent totally new code from being written.
altruism: willingness to do things which benefit other people, even if it results in disadvantage for yourself
Yes, but surely you can see that helping those who would prevent you from being alturistic to others in the future is an inherently condradictory stance?
I will always say that people should be generous or altruistic or whatever because they want to, not because you or I or anyone else tells them they should be.
That's right, and I reserve the right to not help those that are not. I don't personally see the GPL as a way of forcing generousity - that's an oxymoron - but as a way of hampering those that are not. If it's a problem for them, then tough.
One big step down that road would be to close the generics like.com,.org,.biz etc to new registrations and make the USA use.us sub-domains. Having the whole world fighting to get into the same namespace is moronic.
After all free software is about freedom, and freedom cannot be achieved by forcing choices.
"Anti-slavery is about freedom, and freedom cannot be achieved by forcing choices. Therefore the slave-owners must decide for themselves to free their slaves."
Good luck waiting for it, meanwhile I'm rooting for Frederick Douglass in the form of the GPL.
I'm talking about Microsoft here, the company founded on Bill Gates' open letter saying that software freedom is theft, and who continues to this day to tell that to anyone who'll listen. I don't know which Microsoft you were thinking about.
one wonders if by making knifes he's guilty of homicide when someone misuses them.
If a guy comes into your shop to buy knives and you know he's going to kill someone, it's not good enough to step out the back and let the assistant sell them and then pretend it's got nothing to do with you.
"I don't take sides, I kill for anyone". Big fucking hero.
Or perhaps Free From Hidden Agendas.
The fight to stop YOUR freedom to code being taken away from YOU is not a hidden agenda. MS uses BSD code as part of its war against freedom and you, you mug, are one of the targets of that war.
Free From Misinterpretation.
Because it's content-free. An empty gesture can have no interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
At the least they want freedom, which is power over themselves or, to put it another way, the state of not being in someone else's power. Either way, the dynamics of power is one of the most important aspects of society.
Look at any school playground and you'll see kids doing exactly the same pecking-order activities as any other primate. We don't lose that urge to be higher up the pile when we get older. THAT's why people stay in dead-end jobs: they fear the loss of what little power/freedom they do have. Some people don't have that fear and can break out of the grind in one way or another. It may not be rocket science but understanding your position is not always the key to doing something about it.
However, I do agree that the problem people are the ones for whom the power drive has gone too far and that normal people are often blind-sided by them simply because they can't imagine anyone being like that. But then, any of the four drives I listed produces "problem people" when taken too far: sex - rapists, power - dictators, money - rail barons, security - survival nuts. For some, of course, more than one can get out of hand.
TWW
Well, so what? Are you saying that's any worse than the fact that a number of American Linux users may have voted for Bush?
Communism and capitalism are as bad as each other and are based on the same flawed idea: that people want to to the right thing. In communism this is expressed as a faith that they will work together and that people like Stalin will never appear while in capitalism it is expressed as a faith that they will allow free competitition and that people like Gates will never appear (indeed it is based on the idea that aristocrats like the Gates family will have been eliminated from the system before you start). Both are bullshit and neither work anything like as advertised, both in reality lead to mass deaths to support the elite ruling class and their interests.
Of course, on the other hand, nothing else works either; all forms of government tend to degenerate to the same state, chiefly because all forms of government are made up of people and people always want the same things - security, power, money, sex - in some combination. Sociopaths like Blair, Bush, or Mugabee will always rise to the top eventually, all just heads of the same hydra.
Hmm... seem to have woken up in a bad mood.
TWW
I didn't say they were consistant. Most people hate their jobs, but they don't quit, in fact they often try to get promoted by working harder.
TWW
I'm not in the US either, but that doesn't mean that dickheads don't bother me.
There is nothing wrong with showing the customers where meat comes from, even the children. If they can't handle that truth, they shouldn't be eating meat in the first place.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it.
I'm not a vegetarian, I eat meat on a daily basis, but I believe in treating the animals well in life, killing them quickly and slaughtering them efficiently.
I agree, but it still has nothing to do with being a dickwad. I'm happy that doctors perform autopsies and I've seen one, but I don't expect to see one while browsing a webpage about asprin. Just as I'm happy that homosexuals do various things with their arses but I'm not happy when some joker redirects a page to Mr goats.cx.
Oh and by the way, the word 'cunt' is the most widely used expletive in my language (only it's an adjective around here) it's bandied about by everybody both in real life and on television day and night, even in polite conversation. It lost it's power to shock twenty years ago.
Bully for you; what a rich culture you must have.
TWW
You need to talk to more non-/.ers then. People hate worrying that when their kids go to a site something nasty will popup instead. They hate all sorts of other things about it too.
I see this as a simple and effective way to get rid of unwanted guests.
By attacking unsuspecting people that followed a link which they had no idea led off-site (if they even understand the concept)? Why not just block the site? Why not ask them to pay? Why not just stop being an asshole?
He is fully entitled to put his views online just as the company is fully entitled to link to the content. If the company doesn't want people to see a slaughterhouse (I wonder why?), they are free to remove the link.
And Namco is entitled to sue the moron for copying their game. This argument was between beanie-brain and fruitfuckers or whatever they're called; there was no need to drag the customers into the firing line.
This is not jackassery this is legitimate protest.
No, it's just being a cunt.
TWW
IANAL but the answer seems to be that, since the judge is not going to be a programmer, the concept is worthless. Nothing is obvious when the whole subject is a mystery to you.
TWW
They were being cheated: they were being paid for the days they worked but charged for the month they rented, so they were screwed that month.
TWW
Who cares about this crap anymore?
TWW
And if they go away and then come back to your home URL, how do you know it's the same person?
Huzzah! We win!
I can get independent figures on how safe cars are; what stats can Lloyds or anyone else point me to about Linux?
TWW
You've just woken up in....The Blogosphere! De-de-de-de, de-de-de-de.....
The answer to the article's question is: nothing; there's no point in wading through the output of blogs, so don't bother aggregating it; stick the whole lot in the bin. There, wasn't that easy?
TWW
TWW
I'm in!
The GPL at least gets some value back out and the network of reliance it makes between companies that use GPL code make it harder for any one to attack the whole concept of free coders.
Gates once said that he could not see any reason why there should be non-Microsoft software in the world. To produce code for people like that without strings attached seems to be foolish in the long run, if you believe that everyone should be allowed the freedom to write code.
You're confusing altriusme with a philosophy of achieving a 'greater good' through not being altruistic.
I don't think I am, I'm trying to take a strictly practical stance that a 100% neutral alturism contains, in the current legal framework the seeds of its own destruction, and that BSD, GPL, and every other Free licence will go down together if we lose.
TWW
So you've missed twenty years of Microsoft (and others) lobbying for software patents to stop people coding, then?
That's exactly what software patents are for; copyright already protected code from simple re-use (and that was largely because of lobbying by Gates), the only extra protection patents give is to prevent totally new code from being written.
How can you be unaware of these issues?
TWW
Yes, but surely you can see that helping those who would prevent you from being alturistic to others in the future is an inherently condradictory stance?
That's right, and I reserve the right to not help those that are not. I don't personally see the GPL as a way of forcing generousity - that's an oxymoron - but as a way of hampering those that are not. If it's a problem for them, then tough.
TWW
There is a pattern; I don't think there's much doubt about what they might do.
Fair enough.
One big step down that road would be to close the generics like .com, .org, .biz etc to new registrations and make the USA use .us sub-domains. Having the whole world fighting to get into the same namespace is moronic.
TWW
"Anti-slavery is about freedom, and freedom cannot be achieved by forcing choices. Therefore the slave-owners must decide for themselves to free their slaves."
Good luck waiting for it, meanwhile I'm rooting for Frederick Douglass in the form of the GPL.
TWW
I'm talking about Microsoft here, the company founded on Bill Gates' open letter saying that software freedom is theft, and who continues to this day to tell that to anyone who'll listen. I don't know which Microsoft you were thinking about.
one wonders if by making knifes he's guilty of homicide when someone misuses them.
If a guy comes into your shop to buy knives and you know he's going to kill someone, it's not good enough to step out the back and let the assistant sell them and then pretend it's got nothing to do with you.
TWW
Why is refusing to be abused "not altruism"? I think you're confusing alturism with "being a doormat".
TWW
"I don't take sides, I kill for anyone". Big fucking hero.
Or perhaps Free From Hidden Agendas.
The fight to stop YOUR freedom to code being taken away from YOU is not a hidden agenda. MS uses BSD code as part of its war against freedom and you, you mug, are one of the targets of that war.
Free From Misinterpretation.
Because it's content-free. An empty gesture can have no interpretation.
TWW