The purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily. The function of society is to guarantee those conditions that allow all individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
The Constitution
Article 1: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2: Force may be morally and legally used only in defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3: No exceptions shall ever exist to Articles 1 and 2.
What this is really about is what MS basicly points out in taking Lindows to court over the name.
Take the ten applications mentioned and given enough time the GNU/linux/GPL side of the spectrum will come up with compairable products.
All Lindows really does is help the consumer who is stuck on windows to move over to linux. The the fear of moving from a product they paid for having such and such supposed support, to linux which is not the same "paid for and supported by the manufacture" type of system.....Lindows can only help.
Anyone here who wants to argue against that (knowing full well that wine also exist to base a market test against - regarding whatever success lindows has) is exposing themselves as being a potential MS cronie
(And the MS cronie tag game is on!! Only rule, when you find an MS cronie posting distortions here - point them out as being such! - Maybe slashdot could use a forth option on the pill [friend, neutral, foe] - a blue one for MS cronie tagging.)
Everyone should know by now that Microsoft will pull any and everything they can. I believe the Hollowen Documents prove that.
The extent that MS goes is probably yet to be realized by even those at MS who are participating in some of it.
Slashdot could actually start a game called "Tag the MS cronies" that comment here for the purpose of trying to sway OSS, GPL and the like, thoughts towards the "pro-MS" mindset.
There are various facets in use in the market today, in one form or another....... i.e.
"PC monitors that detach and become portable touch-screen tablets, allowing users to roam the house reading E-mail and accessing other information stored on a PC"
All this really means is that there is a need to step up software development tools.
It may sound counter intutitive, but technology is not slowing down and in 100 years things are going to be extreamly different than as we know computer technology today.
Better to go with the flow on something like this than to oppose it.
"... Now y'all can start a flamewar on which of the BSD or GPL philosophies is more 'communist....."
Neither are!
Communism - 1) a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. 2) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activityis controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. 3) the principles and practices of the Communist party. 4) communialism.
Communisim is a combination of a totalitarian governing body and a socialistic economic system.
Totalitarianism - 1) the practice and principles of a totalitarian regrime: the totalitiarism of Nazi Germany. 2) absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution: Totalitarianism aims at suppressing initiative as well as individualism. 3) The character of quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, group, government, or state: the totalitiarism of the father in their patriachal household.
Socialism - 1) Theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole. 2) Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3)(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism.
there is also:
Commonwealth (much of the definition refers to non-communist states or collections of, such as the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the Commonwealth of Austrialia, to even the how it referes to use in US history.)
But then there is this in the definition: 7) any group of persons united by some common interest. 9) a state in which the supreme power is held by the people.
And then there is this which gives a very good overview of what Open Source Software is: QonetiQ - Analysis of th eImpact of Open Source Software
There are some business practices going on in the computer industry that far better fits the definition of communism than what OSS does.
It is also worth noting the standing question as to why some persist with such disortions of the truth. (Could that be classified as "Gatesism"?)
I've provided some links to comments I've made beyond the last 24 in my journal. It took finding these the hardway in looking in the browser history of all news items and comments others have posted that I've read and posted to.
Considering how this is much like censorship by countries and religions of the internet in that it can only helps to inspire defining different camps.
Slashdot provides no easy way for the slashdot users (even thru Google) to do a search for all comments by any one slashdot user. This of course helps to prevent the slashdot users from getting a better view of anyone slashdot user.
Now they are providing a way to killfile people or build walls between the different camps.
Of course from all of this there is information being generated that the slashdot users do not see or have access to.
There is also the difference between the active life time of a slashdot article comment posting, and the unlimited lifetime of date time stamped usenet archive postings. Recently some have pulled out message from long ago and started responding to them, for fun and 20/20 hindsight.
Overall slashdot is applying more an more inherent constraints to what value can be gotten by the users of slashdot.
Lawrence Lessig recently responded to Slashdot questions and many noted he was somewhat hard on the slashdot users. This bothered me, as I know the effort and time the slashdot users put into many of the responses is actually "doing something" (as opposed to what Lawrence was claiming) of productive value. The problem is the lask of there being a way for the users to do review the thoughts and writtings of any one poster, so as to get a better idea about them and their point of views, perhaps in the bigger picture, see solutions they present. Only the ability to see the bigger picture of them is not possible.
Now we have a friend, neutral, foe system on top of a moderating system that has been written about regarding the positive value of how it works. The Conference on Public Domain paper - "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and te Nature of the Firm".
What happened to the "if it's not broke, don't fix it?" practice or the absense of walls in Open Source Software mindsets.
What slashdot should be doing instead, is making it easier for the community of users to extract value in the way of being able to see bigger picture perspectives, not narrower ones. Remove walls and barriers by providing better public search engines of the slashdot archives. This way it can help to develope the OSS directions.
OSS not being hidden is something of an injection of honesty into an industry that has built a reputation for being dishonest. (anyone who wants to argue this I'll just point them to MS and how everybody that likes money as a primary goal wants to be them)
Of course those who don't like that Honesty of OSS is going to do what they do best, be dishonest about it.
When you cannot fight the growing restrictions being created by lobby backed politicians/law makers, then it's time draw the line between what is higher on the acceptability list and what is not in regards to abuses of these laws.
Such a line that is better than what the ACLU and EFF are capable of drawing with there high or potentially profile case selection. Yes we ALL know that is ultimately and inherently the basis of their case selections.
First thing is to recognize the question of "who likes lawyers?" and the whys behind the yeahs and nays. As a matter of understanding the limitations and abuses of lawyers.
In other words, a line on a list that says there is plenty to do in the upper half of the list, that you should not need to spend much time on the lower part of the list. Focusing on items on the lower part could and would indicate abuses of the laws. Not saying the laws are right or wrong, just that being productive and supportive of individual freedoms is how the list is created. Where those things listed higher on the list are more likely to be retrictive or counter of (going against):
**
The Constitution of the Universe (Internet included)
Preamble
The purpose of human life is to live happily.
The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that allow individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
--
Article 1
No person, group of persons or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.
--
This Constitution rests on six axioms:
-Values exist only relative to life.
-Whatever benefits a living organism is a value to that organism. Whatever harms a living organism is a disvalue to that organism.
-The basic value against which all values are measured is the conscious individual.
-Morals relate only to conscious individuals.
-Immoral actions arise from individuals choosing to harm others through force, fraud, deception, coercion -- or from individuals choosing to usurp, attack, or destroy values earned by others.
-Moral actions arise from individuals choosing to benefit others by competitively producing values for them.
***
Untill the internaional law and legal system can prove itself competent in actually dealing effectively with such a list, so as to level off or reduce the crime rate, it really doesn't need to be making up new laws, especially ones that may infringe upon the above constitution. As such, the resources being spent in creating new laws can be better spent in dealing what the longer established crimes that exist and are growing in number.
Also there is something to be said for preventitive measures, such as along the lines of preventitive healthcare and what could be as well consider resources for preventitive warfare, but here on the internet, creating the incentive to not be anti-constitutional (as in the above constitution). To do this by some means of removing the "consumer" and "producer" separation headings and replacing them with "participants" in a manner consistant with the above constitution and respectful of values injected into the internet by individual, groups and world participants.
Oh I get it, Slashdot is the FPGAs and WE are the Genetic Algorithims that are being feed articles that we then generate feedback on. So as to improve the/. FPGA.
"The scary part: Thompson cannot explain exactly how the chip works! "
Isn't the whole point of computer science and mathmatics one of learning things like how and why so we can define and then use control?
Of all the possibilities of why Thompson cannot explain how the chip works, could marketing (investments), NDAs, lack of self reflection (doesn't know what he did)...etc. have anything at all to do with it?
Gee, I plowed this field, put down a bunch of seeds, watered it and I don't know how, but this crop grew.
AI - nothing is naturally that stupid!
Now that's SCARY!!!! Is Thompson an AI?
Reminds me of a tribe of people I learned about in Social Science or Humanity classes many moons ago. The tribe was the "Eeks" and they had a very odd way but very joyious in their beliefs. As society, in this case the research efforts moved in, things changed and they died out, becomming far from joyious, even depressed and sometime members in depression simply died for no apparent reason but lack of will power to live.
On the other hand the internet is somewhat limitless in it's virtuality, but I nelieve I understand hat it is you are on about. Of who is the tax collector, the bill collector, regardless of where you are in the virtual space of the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
The Universal Law
Preamble
The purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily. The function of society is to guarantee those conditions that allow all individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
The Constitution
Article 1: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2: Force may be morally and legally used only in defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3: No exceptions shall ever exist to Articles 1 and 2.
So long as the sentencing against MS anti-trust is the curve we would be being sentenced on,.....
Nothing to be at all concerned about!
almost forgot: if MS started in 1975 and Linus started in 1992, then if MS is so good, why is MS 17 year lead not enough of a buffer for them?
That should worry MS alot more than Lindows!!!
Statement about World Military Terroristic intents
Ever hear of preventitive health care? How about preventitive warfare?
What this is really about is what MS basicly points out in taking Lindows to court over the name.
Take the ten applications mentioned and given enough time the GNU/linux/GPL side of the spectrum will come up with compairable products.
All Lindows really does is help the consumer who is stuck on windows to move over to linux. The the fear of moving from a product they paid for having such and such supposed support, to linux which is not the same "paid for and supported by the manufacture" type of system.....Lindows can only help.
Anyone here who wants to argue against that (knowing full well that wine also exist to base a market test against - regarding whatever success lindows has) is exposing themselves as being a potential MS cronie
(And the MS cronie tag game is on!! Only rule, when you find an MS cronie posting distortions here - point them out as being such! - Maybe slashdot could use a forth option on the pill [friend, neutral, foe] - a blue one for MS cronie tagging.)
Everyone should know by now that Microsoft will pull any and everything they can. I believe the Hollowen Documents prove that.
The extent that MS goes is probably yet to be realized by even those at MS who are participating in some of it.
Slashdot could actually start a game called "Tag the MS cronies" that comment here for the purpose of trying to sway OSS, GPL and the like, thoughts towards the "pro-MS" mindset.
what makes you think you have to have a cluttered desk to have component modularity?
Try the link I gave. At least check out the image.
Try the links mentioned at this link
What is seen as a good idea here can be extended.
There are various facets in use in the market today, in one form or another....... i.e.
"PC monitors that detach and become portable touch-screen tablets, allowing users to roam the house reading E-mail and accessing other information stored on a PC"
and of course this threads story on extigy
........in what is described below:
(replace "Linux system" where you see "amiga"!!!!)
Enclosures
Image of a modular system
another description of the image (note Raritan is not what it was in 1997 - which was a injection molding case manufacture)
and another perspective
Certainly a musician would find it beneficial to be able to add as many channels (actual hardware modules) into his processing/recording mix system.
All this really means is that there is a need to step up software development tools.
It may sound counter intutitive, but technology is not slowing down and in 100 years things are going to be extreamly different than as we know computer technology today.
Better to go with the flow on something like this than to oppose it.
And I thought "Four-Eyes" jokes were bad...
My comments from another board forum
... Now y'all can start a flamewar on which of the BSD or GPL
--
"
philosophies is more 'communist....."
Neither are!
Communism - 1) a theory or system of social organization based on the
holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to
the community as a whole or to the state. 2) a system of social
organization in which all economic and social activityis controlled by a
totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political
party. 3) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4) communialism.
Communisim is a combination of a totalitarian governing body and a
socialistic economic system.
Totalitarianism - 1) the practice and principles of a totalitarian
regrime: the totalitiarism of Nazi Germany. 2) absolute control by the
state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution:
Totalitarianism aims at suppressing initiative as well as individualism.
3) The character of quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual,
group, government, or state: the totalitiarism of the father in their
patriachal household.
Socialism - 1) Theory or system of social organization that advocates the
ownership and control of industry, capital, land, etc., by the community
as a whole. 2) Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3)(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of
a society to communism.
there is also:
Commonwealth (much of the definition refers to non-communist states or
collections of, such as the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the
Commonwealth of Austrialia, to even the how it referes to use in US
history.)
But then there is this in the definition: 7) any group of persons united
by some common interest. 9) a state in which the supreme power is held by
the people.
And then there is this which gives a very good overview of what Open
Source Software is: QonetiQ
- Analysis of th eImpact of Open Source Software
There are some business practices going on in the computer industry that
far better fits the definition of communism than what OSS does.
It is also worth noting the standing question as to why some persist with
such disortions of the truth. (Could that be classified as "Gatesism"?)
I've provided some links to comments I've made beyond the last 24 in my journal. It took finding these the hardway in looking in the browser history of all news items and comments others have posted that I've read and posted to.
So see my journal.
New Slashdot Code - a late comment seems to suggest that even Slashdot is getting on the building barriers and walls bandwagon.
But that's not how the internet was built or how OSS is.
Gee, maybe MS ought to see if they can impliment the personal ID and access system on Slashdot....
What do you support? Wall to divide and conqure and control the masses, or open honest systems?
Considering how this is much like censorship by countries and religions
.
of the internet in that it can only helps to inspire defining different
camps.
Slashdot provides no easy way for the slashdot users (even thru Google)
to do a search for all comments by any one slashdot user. This of course
helps to prevent the slashdot users from getting a better view of anyone
slashdot user.
Now they are providing a way to killfile people or build walls between the
different camps.
Of course from all of this there is information being generated that the
slashdot users do not see or have access to.
There is also the difference between the active life time of a slashdot
article comment posting, and the unlimited lifetime of date time stamped
usenet archive postings. Recently some have pulled out message from long
ago and started responding to them, for fun and 20/20 hindsight.
Overall slashdot is applying more an more inherent constraints to what
value can be gotten by the users of slashdot.
Lawrence Lessig recently responded to Slashdot questions and many noted he
was somewhat hard on the slashdot users. This bothered me, as I know the
effort and time the slashdot users put into many of the responses is
actually "doing something" (as opposed to what Lawrence was claiming) of
productive value. The problem is the lask of there being a way for the
users to do review the thoughts and writtings of any one poster, so as to
get a better idea about them and their point of views, perhaps in the
bigger picture, see solutions they present. Only the ability to see the
bigger picture of them is not possible.
Now we have a friend, neutral, foe system on top of a moderating system
that has been written about regarding the positive value of how it works.
The Conference on Public Domain paper - "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and te
Nature of the Firm"
What happened to the "if it's not broke, don't fix it?" practice or the
absense of walls in Open Source Software mindsets.
What slashdot should be doing instead, is making it easier for the
community of users to extract value in the way of being able to see bigger
picture perspectives, not narrower ones. Remove walls and barriers by
providing better public search engines of the slashdot archives. This way
it can help to develope the OSS directions.
But that's not what this is about, is it?
All this really does is to express evidence of a need to change the IP so to better support what they were intended to support.
See my journal for more.
OSS not being hidden is something of an injection of honesty into an industry that has built a reputation for being dishonest. (anyone who wants to argue this I'll just point them to MS and how everybody that likes money as a primary goal wants to be them)
Of course those who don't like that Honesty of OSS is going to do what they do best, be dishonest about it.
Can access the article yet but by the sound of what is written in comments here, if MS have such insiders then two things.
1) Being that Open Source Software doesn't really have an inside to be at, so someone has really pulled the wool over MS.
2) If I'm wrong about #1, then doesn't that mean MS has become infected with the GPL virus?
Hmmm, maybe that's where the faulty computer industry logic is being generated from re: MS.
See section 2.7.3 page 15 of the QinetiQ regarding the failure of the W3C to properly establish HTML standards!!!!
The W3C tools can't tell the difference between what is mark up language and what it marks up, regarding URLs. But most browsers can (if not all).
Relative to GNU ?
Clearly it's a politica aware and not a politically correct one at that.
When you cannot fight the growing restrictions being created by lobby backed politicians/law makers, then it's time draw the line between what is higher on the acceptability list and what is not in regards to abuses of these laws.
Such a line that is better than what the ACLU and EFF are capable of drawing with there high or potentially profile case selection. Yes we ALL know that is ultimately and inherently the basis of their case selections.
First thing is to recognize the question of "who likes lawyers?" and the whys behind the yeahs and nays. As a matter of understanding the limitations and abuses of lawyers.
In other words, a line on a list that says there is plenty to do in the upper half of the list, that you should not need to spend much time on the lower part of the list. Focusing on items on the lower part could and would indicate abuses of the laws. Not saying the laws are right or wrong, just that being productive and supportive of individual freedoms is how the list is created. Where those things listed higher on the list are more likely to be retrictive or counter of (going against):
**
The Constitution of the Universe (Internet included)
Preamble
The purpose of human life is to live happily.
The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that allow individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
--
Article 1
No person, group of persons or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.
--
This Constitution rests on six axioms:
-Values exist only relative to life.
-Whatever benefits a living organism is a value to that organism. Whatever harms a living organism is a disvalue to that organism.
-The basic value against which all values are measured is the conscious individual.
-Morals relate only to conscious individuals.
-Immoral actions arise from individuals choosing to harm others through force, fraud, deception, coercion -- or from individuals choosing to usurp, attack, or destroy values earned by others.
-Moral actions arise from individuals choosing to benefit others by competitively producing values for them.
***
As an Example of such a list there is Web Police and their Latest Web Statistics
Untill the internaional law and legal system can prove itself competent in actually dealing effectively with such a list, so as to level off or reduce the crime rate, it really doesn't need to be making up new laws, especially ones that may infringe upon the above constitution. As such, the resources being spent in creating new laws can be better spent in dealing what the longer established crimes that exist and are growing in number.
Also there is something to be said for preventitive measures, such as along the lines of preventitive healthcare and what could be as well consider resources for preventitive warfare, but here on the internet, creating the incentive to not be anti-constitutional (as in the above constitution). To do this by some means of removing the "consumer" and "producer" separation headings and replacing them with "participants" in a manner consistant with the above constitution and respectful of values injected into the internet by individual, groups and world participants.
Oh I get it, Slashdot is the FPGAs and WE are the Genetic Algorithims that are being feed articles that we then generate feedback on. So as to improve the /. FPGA.
Isn't there like a +10 mode for self awareness?
"The scary part: Thompson cannot explain exactly how the chip works! "
Isn't the whole point of computer science and mathmatics one of learning things like how and why so we can define and then use control?
Of all the possibilities of why Thompson cannot explain how the chip works, could marketing (investments), NDAs, lack of self reflection (doesn't know what he did)...etc. have anything at all to do with it?
Gee, I plowed this field, put down a bunch of seeds, watered it and I don't know how, but this crop grew.
AI - nothing is naturally that stupid!
Now that's SCARY!!!! Is Thompson an AI?
AI - nothing is naturally that stupid!
Reminds me of a tribe of people I learned about in Social Science or Humanity classes many moons ago. The tribe was the "Eeks" and they had a very odd way but very joyious in their beliefs. As society, in this case the research efforts moved in, things changed and they died out, becomming far from joyious, even depressed and sometime members in depression simply died for no apparent reason but lack of will power to live.
On the other hand the internet is somewhat limitless in it's virtuality, but I nelieve I understand hat it is you are on about. Of who is the tax collector, the bill collector, regardless of where you are in the virtual space of the internet.