Cloning is not the issue. The issue is that human kids have human rights. A Neanderthal would be too close to a human for that. We know apes do not have human rights, that's why we are ok with keeping them in cages, and being separated from their parents. The thing is that probably our ethics are not good enough to face a problem like that. Maybe some day we will be able to deal with a Neanderthal baby, and treat him the right way, but right now we don't have the knowledge, and acquiring it by experimentation seems disgusting to me.
And what does that "god" type have to do with human rights and ethics? I think human cloning is not unethical per se, but experimentation leading to it probably is. One thing is having to live with malformations because of how human reproduction is, and another is to have to deal with an extra eye, because some scientist made a typo.
Free beer and free speech are two different beasts. The kind of people attracted by a free beer proposal are very different from people that adopt GPLed tools. GPLed tools have the benefit that they don't die easily, at least they don't die of lack of funding by itself.
What you say is that you don't like free markets. People are not willing to work without compensation. There is always a compensation, even if it is delayed in time. People who are willing to work at a loss, to recoup costs later in life (as software, or as a better job, or as a better curriculum vitae) are no bigger threat than other entities that operate in free markets.
Define "founding fathers". Linus is a good programmer. There are several good programmers who could write a kernel, specially the kind he wrote. The GNU project was well underway when he started working with Linux, so he was no needed to found any revolution. Maybe adoption of free software would have been slowed, but things would not be much worse w/o him.
Sadly, it doesn't work that way. You could socialize with the people you need, to achieve something, but statistics say that the world is against you.
It's easy, people would rather hire the slow kid of a friend than someone they just met. It's not even a bad thing, there are reasons for doing so. Trust is usually more important than skill.
While you can improve your circle of contacts, just being born in the right family, at the right time is a lot better than being very bright, good with people, and building your way up.
About your tagline: it's not that they are sheep, it's that RMS is _that_ good.
The guy has also being talking about issues like the DMCA, years before it happened. That is so, because some people can look further into the future for obvious risks, while some of us just keep looking at the blinkenlights.
Duh. They are already paying for their children. You are just helping. Just think for a minute what would happen if no one had children. Financially, all the money you could have in the bank would be worth nothing, because it's only a promise of future goods. Well, even less than it does now.
If you are downloading from a torrent, even if it's named "free demo" you haven't read the license terms so you are probably making an unauthorized copy in both cases, so there is no difference between the two.
Again, I don't think Open Source is relevant to the discussion. The purported technical advantages of an open development model might be true, but they don't do much good to the user.
About lock in, free software ensures you have no lock in, by design. You might have temporary, even big issues changing software providers, but you have the power to solve them, or it's not free software.
Proprietary software does not need to come with lock in, but it's possible, and it happens in reality most of the time. When you buy proprietary, critical support is in the hands of the original developer, their friends, or people trying to do magic with reverse engineering. When you buy free, you can hire the original developer, whoever else sells support, or whoever is willing to get to know the software.
About free software or free software as defined by rms, let's put it more clearly:
Freedom is relative, you can't have absolute freedom. You have to choose who you want to give the most freedom, and how they are supposed to keep it.
Free software, as defined by Stallman (and me) is software that ensures the freedom of the user, taking away some freedom from the developer/distributor.
Of coure there are other definitions of free, but I think it's a nice thing to have the most possible freedom for the user.
I want full freedom for the user, even if it takes some freedom from others. How does that compare to your definition of freedom? Or more to the point, do you think it's a good thing to cease to enforce some user freedoms to give the developers more room? I know I don't, but I'm all ears.
Open Source is not about freedom. Open source is a technical issue, about building better software through open source and open standards.
You are talking about the free software philosophy. Free software is about users, not developers.
When you use free software, as a user, you are free to buy updates and improvements from whoever you like, and even hire people to do it for you. Proprietary software comes with lock in, which is not important for throwaway software, but if very important for mission critical stuff.
Proprietary software is meant for the developed world, and their licensing schemes are meant to get as much money as they can. The thing is that in the developing world pockets are not as deep, and things simply can't get done because of having chosen proprietary software in the past, and having to deal with a monopoly in support.
I can't tell if you are a new kind of troll, or just a new kind of human.
Ayhow, your creativity or uniqueness deserves a bite or a response.
Browsers are usually free, so if cost was an issue, IE would be equal to Firefox, to Chrome, to Safari, to IceWeasel.
The point that he is talking about IceWeasel is very illustrative.
IceWeasel is a rebranding from Debian of the Firefox browser, that allows them to fix bugs and stuff without permission of approval from the Mozilla Foundation.
So, the point of using IceWeasel is to get that small bit of freedom ( to get your bugs fixed by Debian if they choose to ).
Firefox grants you a lot of freedom, but that one. So you would need to be very nitpicking to do that.
In my opinion, the point of using IceWeasel in Windows coud be that you don't like Firefox maintainers, you are a Debian supporter or something like that.
Anybody can be trapped in/lured into a job where he needs to use Windows. It has happened to me in the past. That doesn't mean you have to change your ways, you can keep using the software you are accustomed to.
You should read some history. US companies, backed by US military power, have shaped the political arena to the south of Texas. To say that US companies have nothing to do with government officials taking bribes is irresponsible at the least.
Well, it might even be open source. You get the source, and you can change it. That is why "open source" is an unfortunate term. It would not be free software, because the user would be some freedoms short.
Lamers. China is big, and can easily leapfrog US space tech. They have the money. They can buy the expertise. Some guy putting satellites in orbit is nothing compared to what China can build and buy. China is also spending loads less money that NASA. Affordable space flight has been available for long, just not in the US. You are just catching up, and slowly.
Then you don't think you need a truly free economy. You just want the regulations to be where you like them. And want to remove the regulations that do not affect you, or that you don't undestand. I also believe that if my government didn't spend so much money on health, they would have the money to give me a nice gift at the end of the year.
Truly free economy does not have monopolies, so copyright and patents are out of the question. Let the market encourage the creation of products... somehow.
And I don't understand why the government would need to maintain roads. For instance, the US already has enough roads. They can be maintained by tolls, or disappear. If your town doesn't have a good road infrastructure, move.
You missed _my_ point. I don't care about the FCC, Google and their antennas. I care about the casual attitude about companies bribing people in poorer countries. That kind of double morals, like it's bad to do shady bussiness home, but it's ok to do them where other people live. That is the point of view that supports rich countries companies pillaging other countries.
My point was clearly not Google. I said that _you_ disgust me, because you proposed that google went to Mexico and bribed people, as if it was a good thing to do.
A) Mexico is third world. B) I am not refuting your claim of widespread official corruption in Mexico. I am complaining about your willingness to finance it.
You make a good point about Google, otherwise. I am just disgusted by how casually you propose such a harmful action. I understand in your country things are just like that, but it doesn't make it any less disgusting.
Only within the Continental U.S., Hawaii and some U.S. territories. Let Google go offshore somewhere and set up a test facility. I doubt Mexico would care very much (probably just grease a few palms.)
You disgust me. The third world is not your backyard. Or should not be. Mexico would be better without Google's bribe money.
Slashdot Mirror
Cloning is not the issue.
The issue is that human kids have human rights. A Neanderthal would be too close to a human for that.
We know apes do not have human rights, that's why we are ok with keeping them in cages, and being separated from their parents.
The thing is that probably our ethics are not good enough to face a problem like that. Maybe some day we will be able to deal with a Neanderthal baby, and treat him the right way, but right now we don't have the knowledge, and acquiring it by experimentation seems disgusting to me.
And what does that "god" type have to do with human rights and ethics?
I think human cloning is not unethical per se, but experimentation leading to it probably is. One thing is having to live with malformations because of how human reproduction is, and another is to have to deal with an extra eye, because some scientist made a typo.
Free beer and free speech are two different beasts.
The kind of people attracted by a free beer proposal are very different from people that adopt GPLed tools.
GPLed tools have the benefit that they don't die easily, at least they don't die of lack of funding by itself.
What you say is that you don't like free markets.
People are not willing to work without compensation. There is always a compensation, even if it is delayed in time.
People who are willing to work at a loss, to recoup costs later in life (as software, or as a better job, or as a better curriculum vitae) are no bigger threat than other entities that operate in free markets.
Define "founding fathers".
Linus is a good programmer. There are several good programmers who could write a kernel, specially the kind he wrote.
The GNU project was well underway when he started working with Linux, so he was no needed to found any revolution. Maybe adoption of free software would have been slowed, but things would not be much worse w/o him.
Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
You could socialize with the people you need, to achieve something, but statistics say that the world is against you.
It's easy, people would rather hire the slow kid of a friend than someone they just met. It's not even a bad thing, there are reasons for doing so. Trust is usually more important than skill.
While you can improve your circle of contacts, just being born in the right family, at the right time is a lot better than being very bright, good with people, and building your way up.
About your tagline: it's not that they are sheep, it's that RMS is _that_ good.
The guy has also being talking about issues like the DMCA, years before it happened. That is so, because some people can look further into the future for obvious risks, while some of us just keep looking at the blinkenlights.
Duh.
They are already paying for their children. You are just helping.
Just think for a minute what would happen if no one had children. Financially, all the money you could have in the bank would be worth nothing, because it's only a promise of future goods. Well, even less than it does now.
Arrr.
If you are downloading from a torrent, even if it's named "free demo" you haven't read the license terms so you are probably making an unauthorized copy in both cases, so there is no difference between the two.
Again, I don't think Open Source is relevant to the discussion. The purported technical advantages of an open development model might be true, but they don't do much good to the user.
About lock in, free software ensures you have no lock in, by design. You might have temporary, even big issues changing software providers, but you have the power to solve them, or it's not free software.
Proprietary software does not need to come with lock in, but it's possible, and it happens in reality most of the time. When you buy proprietary, critical support is in the hands of the original developer, their friends, or people trying to do magic with reverse engineering. When you buy free, you can hire the original developer, whoever else sells support, or whoever is willing to get to know the software.
About free software or free software as defined by rms, let's put it more clearly:
Freedom is relative, you can't have absolute freedom. You have to choose who you want to give the most freedom, and how they are supposed to keep it.
Free software, as defined by Stallman (and me) is software that ensures the freedom of the user, taking away some freedom from the developer/distributor.
Of coure there are other definitions of free, but I think it's a nice thing to have the most possible freedom for the user.
I want full freedom for the user, even if it takes some freedom from others. How does that compare to your definition of freedom? Or more to the point, do you think it's a good thing to cease to enforce some user freedoms to give the developers more room? I know I don't, but I'm all ears.
Open Source is not about freedom. Open source is a technical issue, about building better software through open source and open standards.
You are talking about the free software philosophy. Free software is about users, not developers.
When you use free software, as a user, you are free to buy updates and improvements from whoever you like, and even hire people to do it for you. Proprietary software comes with lock in, which is not important for throwaway software, but if very important for mission critical stuff.
Proprietary software is meant for the developed world, and their licensing schemes are meant to get as much money as they can. The thing is that in the developing world pockets are not as deep, and things simply can't get done because of having chosen proprietary software in the past, and having to deal with a monopoly in support.
I can't tell if you are a new kind of troll, or just a new kind of human.
Ayhow, your creativity or uniqueness deserves a bite or a response.
Browsers are usually free, so if cost was an issue, IE would be equal to Firefox, to Chrome, to Safari, to IceWeasel.
The point that he is talking about IceWeasel is very illustrative.
IceWeasel is a rebranding from Debian of the Firefox browser, that allows them to fix bugs and stuff without permission of approval from the Mozilla Foundation.
So, the point of using IceWeasel is to get that small bit of freedom ( to get your bugs fixed by Debian if they choose to ).
Firefox grants you a lot of freedom, but that one. So you would need to be very nitpicking to do that.
In my opinion, the point of using IceWeasel in Windows coud be that you don't like Firefox maintainers, you are a Debian supporter or something like that.
Anybody can be trapped in/lured into a job where he needs to use Windows. It has happened to me in the past. That doesn't mean you have to change your ways, you can keep using the software you are accustomed to.
I like watching youtube on my Wii.
I would like a real fullscreen mode, but I am almost happy with it.
This new wave of nonsensical puns has gone too far already, eye think.
Catching up in making space flight affordable.
Russia was, and China is moving fast in that regard.
You should read some history.
US companies, backed by US military power, have shaped the political arena to the south of Texas.
To say that US companies have nothing to do with government officials taking bribes is irresponsible at the least.
The best example of US companies involvement with governments in Latin America can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
Well, it might even be open source. You get the source, and you can change it.
That is why "open source" is an unfortunate term.
It would not be free software, because the user would be some freedoms short.
Lamers.
China is big, and can easily leapfrog US space tech. They have the money. They can buy the expertise.
Some guy putting satellites in orbit is nothing compared to what China can build and buy.
China is also spending loads less money that NASA. Affordable space flight has been available for long, just not in the US. You are just catching up, and slowly.
And that is where he fails.
People don't have morals where money is involved.
Just tune it up with a delay, so it does that 50 minutes later, when you are celebrating the deal with your new client.
Then you don't think you need a truly free economy. You just want the regulations to be where you like them. And want to remove the regulations that do not affect you, or that you don't undestand.
I also believe that if my government didn't spend so much money on health, they would have the money to give me a nice gift at the end of the year.
Truly free economy does not have monopolies, so copyright and patents are out of the question. Let the market encourage the creation of products... somehow.
And I don't understand why the government would need to maintain roads. For instance, the US already has enough roads. They can be maintained by tolls, or disappear. If your town doesn't have a good road infrastructure, move.
You missed _my_ point. I don't care about the FCC, Google and their antennas. I care about the casual attitude about companies bribing people in poorer countries.
That kind of double morals, like it's bad to do shady bussiness home, but it's ok to do them where other people live. That is the point of view that supports rich countries companies pillaging other countries.
My point was clearly not Google.
I said that _you_ disgust me, because you proposed that google went to Mexico and bribed people, as if it was a good thing to do.
A) Mexico is third world.
B) I am not refuting your claim of widespread official corruption in Mexico. I am complaining about your willingness to finance it.
You make a good point about Google, otherwise. I am just disgusted by how casually you propose such a harmful action. I understand in your country things are just like that, but it doesn't make it any less disgusting.
Only within the Continental U.S., Hawaii and some U.S. territories. Let Google go offshore somewhere and set up a test facility. I doubt Mexico would care very much (probably just grease a few palms.)
You disgust me.
The third world is not your backyard. Or should not be. Mexico would be better without Google's bribe money.
No, it would just be ""read"".