This totally ignores the point. I can reliably guess the race, wealth and nationality of someone living in Cairo, Oslo or Hanoi, but that is no basis to declare those cities racist.
The average of ANY GROUP will be the majority, and thus, by your faulty reasoning, ANY GROUP is discriminatory.
That still doesn't explain why you're afraid of corporations and not the government. It's like saying you're afraid of casinos more than the mafia because a casino might have a mob connections.
The solution would be to limit the power of government, rather than set an arbitrary size upon a corporation.
The internet is colorblind, genderblind, and in fact, blind alltogether. The only way I even know what CmdrTaco's race is, is because I met him at LWCE. If you use an alias, nomme-de-net or just an initial for your first name, no one will ever know your gender.
No one on the internet cares if you're male or female, and they won't know unless you use your real name. And they will never know what your race is unless you tell them. But even if you do, they won't care. This is why I think it's so ironic and sad that Jesse Jackson is decrying internet racism.
This is the purest meritocracy. You have to earn your way on your own. You won't have gender or race to help (or hinder) you.
Okay, I deserved that one. Saying that most church-goers are not real Christians is just as bad as saying all Christians want a totalitarian moral regime.
It is probably accurate to say that most Christians are against pornography. But to assert as the previous poster implied that all Christians want to ban it, is wrong. True, some do. Others desire non-governmental means to reduce it. Others say it is none of their business as long as they themselves don't use it. Still others have no clue so they ignore the issue.
I've had many conversations with Marshall Fritz, the originator of that card. The purpose of the pocket test is not to see if someone is a libertarian or not. It is partly propaganda, and partly a demonstration that libertarianism is not a lunatic fringe philosophy. "You believe in A, well so do we".
It also gets people to think outside of the box, which is always a good thing. Although wildy inaccurate, it is magnitudes more useful than the silly left-right spectrum. Nothing is more aggravating than having someone ask "libertarians, are they conservatives or liberals".
The goal of libertarianism is a vastly reduced government, zero taxation, etc. But long before such a circumstance is reached, we would enter a state of diminishing returns.
Libertarianism is a direction, not a goal. I'll be more than pleased to live under a government composed of libertarian-leaning conservatives bickering with libertarian-leaning liberals.
"the government is probably the only thing keeping the country by being run by SuperCorp, the mass merger of all corporations, that would be in control of everything."
One company cannot buy another unless it is first for sale. That most modern companies decide to go public, and thus be eternally up for sale, is beyond me, but there are still many that aren't.
I'm am still surprised at the number of people more afraid of corporations than of governments. Corporations use voluntary means of persuasion. Governments use force. Microsoft cannot force you to use Windows. Have you forgotten your most recent history? Linux rose from nothing to a viable alternative before the government even wrapped up their case. And the case hasn't even been decided yet!
Microsoft does not maintain armies or navies. It does not have a police force or issue laws. It does not compel parents to send their children to Microsoft-run schools. It does not tax. The so-called Windows tax is only a pejorative. It is not a tax.
No individual, company or corporation any other private organization has ever approached the atrocities committed by governments. Auschwitz, the Trail of Tears, the Gulag, the list goes on. I am far more fearful of good people with state power than evil people with corporate shares.
I'm even more afraid of the totalitarian moral agendas of those 'Crats who worship the Greater Good and the diety called Godverment.
Those "christians" who want a totalitarian moral regime are not fooling themselves. I doubt most of them are even real Christians, and just mere church-goers. They do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love thy neighbor as thyself".
I am a Christian. But I am also a libertarian in every sense of the word. I am a libertarian precisely because I am a Christian. Christ came to offer people a choice, not to make the choice for them.
I don't want a checklist of where the candidates stand on various issues. Because there will inevitably be unaddressed issues.
What I want instead is a clear and concise understanding of the candidate's philosophy. When does he or she feel government intervention into the private sector is necessary? Instead of a checklist of policies regarding relations with each and every nation, I want an overall guideline on foreign policy.
I want to know how the candidate will react when confronted with some vital issue that did *NOT* come up during the campaign.
"IMHO there's nothing moral about aiding and abetting organizations who have ripped off their customers and all but eliminated progress in my profession."
You are correct. The only progress in software has come solely from the GNU camp.
You misunderstood the comment. If I write an extension to gcc, and that extension is 100% my own code, I am still required to use the GPL. BSDL folks have little problem with those who wish to keep their own personal source code GPLd forever. But it's a very different thing to require distinct code be under the same license.
Think of how pissed the GNU community would be if BSD had similar clauses. There would probably be an article at GNU describing such a thing as obnoxious.
"The unwritten rule of the BSDL seems to be "you can make a proprietary version, but not a GPL'd version""
The reason for this is that the GPL extends to third parties, the "viral" clauses in other words. No other license that I am aware of, proprietary or otherwise, does this (except for those few derived from the GPL). BSDL developers have no desire whatsoever to impose anything on third parties.
However, there is nothing preventing you from copylefting your mods to BSD code. Just don't expect it to get rolled back into the source tree. If GNU will refuse, or even sue, those who would return modifications under BSDL, why should BSDL behave any differently?
"They seem to resent the fairness we insist on."
Enforced fairness is not fair. It is impossible to commit a moral act if you have no choice. If you choose to use a fairness enforcing license, that is your choice, but by making on airs of moral superiority by doing so is utter hypocrisy. That's like calling taxation charity.
"Perhaps they're trolling for work from naive coders.."
Okay, now I'm completely offended! My actions are my own, and it's none of your damn business what they are. It's interesting how Stallmanistas rant on and on about freedom, but once someone makes a free and conscious choice, they call us dupes and knaves. You guys don't know the first thing about freedom.
Ah, yes. GNU advocacy at it's finest. Makes me so proud to use Linux. After all, there was no such thing as Free Software until the concept mythically sprouted from the forehead of Richard Stallman. Since then we have been freed from the bondage of, of, of... non-GNU software.
After all, the GPL demands that all those who use gcc must worship Richard Stallman.
Recently there has been a spate of articles here and elsewhere touting the wonderful benefits that would acrue of a government adopted Open Source software. France is being hailed as a nation with ultra-enlightened statesmen for considering Open Source, and there is a push to lobby the US to do the same.
Now comes this story. Even though it's a hoax, imagine if it were true. Only Red Star Linux may be used. Debian, Redhat, SuSE, Slackware may NOT be used. This would be a government deciding not what *kind* of software it would use, but what *specific* piece of software to use. Although every other government seems to be predominantly Microsoft based, none has ever mandated a specific operating system nationwide.
This is not freedom in *ANY* sense of the word. And any here who would be in favor of such a policy don't want the freedom they claim they do, but instead just want their pet OS to win, fair or foul.
"Ever hear of Tasers, pepper spray or ammonia spray? Ever hear of karate, judo, ju-jitsu or ninjitsu?"
Like it or not, criminals have guns. No amount of gun control legislation will stop that. What's pepper spray going to do against a saturday night special?
"Methinks that there are plenty of ways to protect oneself other than by mowing down every living thing in a five-mile radius."
No firearm can do this. No individual can do this. The only way it could be done is through nuclear weapons or massive pillaging by an army. Get a clue.
That was a most excellent article. Of course, it was written by one of those extremist quasi-anarchist types who failed to realize the wondrous benefits of giving homage to the almighty and divine State brings. my life is so much simpler now that the blessed State has taken upon itself the burden of deciding everything for me.
The tactics of a criminal monopoly masquerading as your benefactor, aka protection racket aka government:
"Electronic Surreptitious Intercept Devices"
I'm assuming that these are bugs. Of course we can't have them, the racketeers are jealous of their monopoly.
"The two of them proceeded to rattle off a lot of mumble jumble like Title 18 USC Section 2512 and other numbers"
Of course they only gave out paragraph and subsection numbers. It's intimidation. If you knew what they were really after you could cooperate. But by not knowing, you are unable to help these friendly racketeers, who will then be able to later claim you were uncooperative.
"The one [agent] gave me his card, and I noticed that he was from Buffalo, an hour and a half away"
Well, of course. Some of these thugs actually attempt to have a conscience. If local agents did this raid, you might recognize them. You might even meet them again on your way in to church next Sunday. Think of the embarassment.
"We'll lock the doors, send all the employees home, we'll go through all of your inventory, records, customer lists and computers."
If they're looking for particular pieces of electronic equipment, why do they need to search customer lists and computers?
"obviously, they would want me to confirm their counts and amounts"
Hah! Apparently this was his first run-in with the racketeers.
"Special Agent Craig Healy turned to me and said 'You can trust us.'"
Okay, when I said earlier that some of these criminals attempt to have a conscience, I wasn't referring to Special Asshole Craig Healy.
"One of them said words to the effect of, 'gee, we must have picked up the wrong box from your shelf.'"
Gee, an accident. Does anyone out there really believe that this was an honest mistake? If you do, check you brain for soap residue.
"This show of force, while maybe necessary for raiding an underground drug lab, was hardly necessary."
Yes, this show of force is necessary. Without it you might just form the subversive opinion that the racketeers are ordinary people like you or me. Although this is objectively correct, they believe themselves to be superior beings. They even claim that they hold special rights above and beyond those of everyone else, and that they are not subject to the same laws they impose on others.
"We're not necessarily looking for kits or components. We're looking for items like clocks, smoke detectors and picture frames."
Then why in God's good name didn't you take any clocks, smoke detectors or picture frames? Why did you take kits and components instead? This guy sounds a mouthpiece for the mob, oh wait...
"Is this joke at the expense of the guy? Of the clerk? Of Mars Candy? No, it's at no-ones expense."
Wrong. It is at expense of the guy. After all, that candy bar will cost the same anywhere else, and even if there was a difference, it's not worth the time to shop around. It's poking fun at comparison shoppers who can't buy anything at all until they see what everyone else is selling stuff for.
Shopping around the for best price on a car, or a television, or a computer makes sense. But comparison shopping on a candy bar is absurd. The guy is absurd. That's what makes it funny.
Excuse me. Now I understand. You want the cops going to every homeworker's private residence and inspecting it for violations And when violations are found, shut that business down so that the homeworkers lose their jobs. I understand now. The new compassion of big government.
I've seen neighbors lose their jobs because the state didn't consider their piece-work job to be legal. So now they're unemployed, and much much worse off.
Information was never regulated at the ports. Only material goods were. Your computer connected to the net may not be an international port, but if you order material good online, they have to shipped to you somehow.
If a law is "good", then it doesn't have to keep up with technology. By "good" law, I mean law that is not aimed for or against any particular group of people, including politicians, lobbyists or voters. Note that "good" here does not refer to the justification, morality or intent behind the law. That's a whole new can of worms:-)
The reason good law doesn't have to keep up with technology is that law is supposed to be about people, not things. As an obvious grotesque example, there were no laws against owning nuclear weapons prior to the 1950's. However, there were scads of laws against murder, mass murder, mayhem, public endangerment, to name a few, all of which are relevent to the private ownership of nuclear weapons. A trivial example of a "bad" law is that which permits only one local telephone provider to do business in my locale. This may have made sense when it was written, but by being geared towards a specific group of companies, it is now seriously obsolete.
One side effect of "good" law is that one need not be a lawyer to understand it, and can let experience be their guide. If it is okay for your neighbor to perform an action under "good" law, then it is okay for you to do the same. But you never know where you stand under "bad" law.
If there's problems applying a law to new technology, rest assured that it's because it is not a "good" law. All the more reason to change it.
"They weren't going to give me any space at the home office."
Okay, okay, I was generalizing. I am now doing appropriate penance by admitting it.
However...
If your place of employment (your home) is such a hellhole and sweatshop, why did you ever acccept the job to begin with? (you didn't) If you wouldn't work at a jobsite that had unhealthy conditions, why would work from home with the same unhealthy conditions? (you don't)
When you are hired, there are conditions to the employment. You have some conditions for your boss, and he or she has some for you. By accepting the job you are accepting those conditions. If your boss's conditions includes working from home, and your home environment is not safe (though why you would even live there if that's the case is beyond me), then it is up to you to submit conditions of your own that list ergonomic furniture and equipment. But bringing in the might of the US government in the guise of OSHA to demand your conditions (under pain of fine or imprisonment) is pretty heavy-handed.
Slashdot Mirror
This totally ignores the point. I can reliably guess the race, wealth and nationality of someone living in Cairo, Oslo or Hanoi, but that is no basis to declare those cities racist.
The average of ANY GROUP will be the majority, and thus, by your faulty reasoning, ANY GROUP is discriminatory.
My neighbor is 300 pounds. He has the resources to stomp me into the ground should I unwittingly annoy him. Should I feel afraid of him as well?
That still doesn't explain why you're afraid of corporations and not the government. It's like saying you're afraid of casinos more than the mafia because a casino might have a mob connections.
The solution would be to limit the power of government, rather than set an arbitrary size upon a corporation.
You can stop shouting anytime now...
The internet is colorblind, genderblind, and in fact, blind alltogether. The only way I even know what CmdrTaco's race is, is because I met him at LWCE. If you use an alias, nomme-de-net or just an initial for your first name, no one will ever know your gender.
No one on the internet cares if you're male or female, and they won't know unless you use your real name. And they will never know what your race is unless you tell them. But even if you do, they won't care. This is why I think it's so ironic and sad that Jesse Jackson is decrying internet racism.
This is the purest meritocracy. You have to earn your way on your own. You won't have gender or race to help (or hinder) you.
Okay, I deserved that one. Saying that most church-goers are not real Christians is just as bad as saying all Christians want a totalitarian moral regime.
It is probably accurate to say that most Christians are against pornography. But to assert as the previous poster implied that all Christians want to ban it, is wrong. True, some do. Others desire non-governmental means to reduce it. Others say it is none of their business as long as they themselves don't use it. Still others have no clue so they ignore the issue.
I've had many conversations with Marshall Fritz, the originator of that card. The purpose of the pocket test is not to see if someone is a libertarian or not. It is partly propaganda, and partly a demonstration that libertarianism is not a lunatic fringe philosophy. "You believe in A, well so do we".
It also gets people to think outside of the box, which is always a good thing. Although wildy inaccurate, it is magnitudes more useful than the silly left-right spectrum. Nothing is more aggravating than having someone ask "libertarians, are they conservatives or liberals".
The goal of libertarianism is a vastly reduced government, zero taxation, etc. But long before such a circumstance is reached, we would enter a state of diminishing returns.
Libertarianism is a direction, not a goal. I'll be more than pleased to live under a government composed of libertarian-leaning conservatives bickering with libertarian-leaning liberals.
"the government is probably the only thing keeping the country by being run by SuperCorp, the mass merger of all corporations, that would be in control of everything."
One company cannot buy another unless it is first for sale. That most modern companies decide to go public, and thus be eternally up for sale, is beyond me, but there are still many that aren't.
I'm am still surprised at the number of people more afraid of corporations than of governments. Corporations use voluntary means of persuasion. Governments use force. Microsoft cannot force you to use Windows. Have you forgotten your most recent history? Linux rose from nothing to a viable alternative before the government even wrapped up their case. And the case hasn't even been decided yet!
Microsoft does not maintain armies or navies. It does not have a police force or issue laws. It does not compel parents to send their children to Microsoft-run schools. It does not tax. The so-called Windows tax is only a pejorative. It is not a tax.
No individual, company or corporation any other private organization has ever approached the atrocities committed by governments. Auschwitz, the Trail of Tears, the Gulag, the list goes on. I am far more fearful of good people with state power than evil people with corporate shares.
I'm even more afraid of the totalitarian moral agendas of those 'Crats who worship the Greater Good and the diety called Godverment.
Those "christians" who want a totalitarian moral regime are not fooling themselves. I doubt most of them are even real Christians, and just mere church-goers. They do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love thy neighbor as thyself".
I am a Christian. But I am also a libertarian in every sense of the word. I am a libertarian precisely because I am a Christian. Christ came to offer people a choice, not to make the choice for them.
I don't want a checklist of where the candidates stand on various issues. Because there will inevitably be unaddressed issues.
What I want instead is a clear and concise understanding of the candidate's philosophy. When does he or she feel government intervention into the private sector is necessary? Instead of a checklist of policies regarding relations with each and every nation, I want an overall guideline on foreign policy.
I want to know how the candidate will react when confronted with some vital issue that did *NOT* come up during the campaign.
"IMHO there's nothing moral about aiding and abetting organizations who have ripped off their customers and all but eliminated progress in my profession."
You are correct. The only progress in software has come solely from the GNU camp.
"Idealism is not a vice"
But idealism put in practice often is. Because all idealism is, is wondering what the world would be like if you/I were king.
You misunderstood the comment. If I write an extension to gcc, and that extension is 100% my own code, I am still required to use the GPL. BSDL folks have little problem with those who wish to keep their own personal source code GPLd forever. But it's a very different thing to require distinct code be under the same license.
Think of how pissed the GNU community would be if BSD had similar clauses. There would probably be an article at GNU describing such a thing as obnoxious.
"The unwritten rule of the BSDL seems to be "you can make a proprietary version, but not a GPL'd version""
The reason for this is that the GPL extends to third parties, the "viral" clauses in other words. No other license that I am aware of, proprietary or otherwise, does this (except for those few derived from the GPL). BSDL developers have no desire whatsoever to impose anything on third parties.
However, there is nothing preventing you from copylefting your mods to BSD code. Just don't expect it to get rolled back into the source tree. If GNU will refuse, or even sue, those who would return modifications under BSDL, why should BSDL behave any differently?
"They seem to resent the fairness we insist on."
Enforced fairness is not fair. It is impossible to commit a moral act if you have no choice. If you choose to use a fairness enforcing license, that is your choice, but by making on airs of moral superiority by doing so is utter hypocrisy. That's like calling taxation charity.
"Perhaps they're trolling for work from naive coders.."
Okay, now I'm completely offended! My actions are my own, and it's none of your damn business what they are. It's interesting how Stallmanistas rant on and on about freedom, but once someone makes a free and conscious choice, they call us dupes and knaves. You guys don't know the first thing about freedom.
Ah, yes. GNU advocacy at it's finest. Makes me so proud to use Linux. After all, there was no such thing as Free Software until the concept mythically sprouted from the forehead of Richard Stallman. Since then we have been freed from the bondage of, of, of... non-GNU software.
After all, the GPL demands that all those who use gcc must worship Richard Stallman.
Recently there has been a spate of articles here and elsewhere touting the wonderful benefits that would acrue of a government adopted Open Source software. France is being hailed as a nation with ultra-enlightened statesmen for considering Open Source, and there is a push to lobby the US to do the same.
Now comes this story. Even though it's a hoax, imagine if it were true. Only Red Star Linux may be used. Debian, Redhat, SuSE, Slackware may NOT be used. This would be a government deciding not what *kind* of software it would use, but what *specific* piece of software to use. Although every other government seems to be predominantly Microsoft based, none has ever mandated a specific operating system nationwide.
This is not freedom in *ANY* sense of the word. And any here who would be in favor of such a policy don't want the freedom they claim they do, but instead just want their pet OS to win, fair or foul.
"Ever hear of Tasers, pepper spray or ammonia spray? Ever hear of karate, judo, ju-jitsu or ninjitsu?"
Like it or not, criminals have guns. No amount of gun control legislation will stop that. What's pepper spray going to do against a saturday night special?
"Methinks that there are plenty of ways to protect oneself other than by mowing down every living thing in a five-mile radius."
No firearm can do this. No individual can do this. The only way it could be done is through nuclear weapons or massive pillaging by an army. Get a clue.
That was a most excellent article. Of course, it was written by one of those extremist quasi-anarchist types who failed to realize the wondrous benefits of giving homage to the almighty and divine State brings. my life is so much simpler now that the blessed State has taken upon itself the burden of deciding everything for me.
Since when does gun ownership, outrage against illegal search and seizures, and demand for just compensation qualify as anarchy?
"Quoting the constitution again, those damns anarchists!"
The tactics of a criminal monopoly masquerading as your benefactor, aka protection racket aka government:
"Electronic Surreptitious Intercept Devices"
I'm assuming that these are bugs. Of course we can't have them, the racketeers are jealous of their monopoly.
"The two of them proceeded to rattle off a lot of mumble jumble like Title 18 USC Section 2512 and other numbers"
Of course they only gave out paragraph and subsection numbers. It's intimidation. If you knew what they were really after you could cooperate. But by not knowing, you are unable to help these friendly racketeers, who will then be able to later claim you were uncooperative.
"The one [agent] gave me his card, and I noticed that he was from Buffalo, an hour and a half away"
Well, of course. Some of these thugs actually attempt to have a conscience. If local agents did this raid, you might recognize them. You might even meet them again on your way in to church next Sunday. Think of the embarassment.
"We'll lock the doors, send all the employees home, we'll go through all of your inventory, records, customer lists and computers."
If they're looking for particular pieces of electronic equipment, why do they need to search customer lists and computers?
"obviously, they would want me to confirm their counts and amounts"
Hah! Apparently this was his first run-in with the racketeers.
"Special Agent Craig Healy turned to me and said 'You can trust us.'"
Okay, when I said earlier that some of these criminals attempt to have a conscience, I wasn't referring to Special Asshole Craig Healy.
"One of them said words to the effect of, 'gee, we must have picked up the wrong box from your shelf.'"
Gee, an accident. Does anyone out there really believe that this was an honest mistake? If you do, check you brain for soap residue.
"This show of force, while maybe necessary for raiding an underground drug lab, was hardly necessary."
Yes, this show of force is necessary. Without it you might just form the subversive opinion that the racketeers are ordinary people like you or me. Although this is objectively correct, they believe themselves to be superior beings. They even claim that they hold special rights above and beyond those of everyone else, and that they are not subject to the same laws they impose on others.
"We're not necessarily looking for kits or components. We're looking for items like clocks, smoke detectors and picture frames."
Then why in God's good name didn't you take any clocks, smoke detectors or picture frames? Why did you take kits and components instead? This guy sounds a mouthpiece for the mob, oh wait...
"Is this joke at the expense of the guy? Of the clerk? Of Mars Candy? No, it's at no-ones expense."
Wrong. It is at expense of the guy. After all, that candy bar will cost the same anywhere else, and even if there was a difference, it's not worth the time to shop around. It's poking fun at comparison shoppers who can't buy anything at all until they see what everyone else is selling stuff for.
Shopping around the for best price on a car, or a television, or a computer makes sense. But comparison shopping on a candy bar is absurd. The guy is absurd. That's what makes it funny.
Excuse me. Now I understand. You want the cops going to every homeworker's private residence and inspecting it for violations And when violations are found, shut that business down so that the homeworkers lose their jobs. I understand now. The new compassion of big government.
I've seen neighbors lose their jobs because the state didn't consider their piece-work job to be legal. So now they're unemployed, and much much worse off.
Information was never regulated at the ports. Only material goods were. Your computer connected to the net may not be an international port, but if you order material good online, they have to shipped to you somehow.
If a law is "good", then it doesn't have to keep up with technology. By "good" law, I mean law that is not aimed for or against any particular group of people, including politicians, lobbyists or voters. Note that "good" here does not refer to the justification, morality or intent behind the law. That's a whole new can of worms :-)
The reason good law doesn't have to keep up with technology is that law is supposed to be about people, not things. As an obvious grotesque example, there were no laws against owning nuclear weapons prior to the 1950's. However, there were scads of laws against murder, mass murder, mayhem, public endangerment, to name a few, all of which are relevent to the private ownership of nuclear weapons. A trivial example of a "bad" law is that which permits only one local telephone provider to do business in my locale. This may have made sense when it was written, but by being geared towards a specific group of companies, it is now seriously obsolete.
One side effect of "good" law is that one need not be a lawyer to understand it, and can let experience be their guide. If it is okay for your neighbor to perform an action under "good" law, then it is okay for you to do the same. But you never know where you stand under "bad" law.
If there's problems applying a law to new technology, rest assured that it's because it is not a "good" law. All the more reason to change it.
"They weren't going to give me any space at the home office."
Okay, okay, I was generalizing. I am now doing appropriate penance by admitting it.
However...
If your place of employment (your home) is such a hellhole and sweatshop, why did you ever acccept the job to begin with? (you didn't) If you wouldn't work at a jobsite that had unhealthy conditions, why would work from home with the same unhealthy conditions? (you don't)
When you are hired, there are conditions to the employment. You have some conditions for your boss, and he or she has some for you. By accepting the job you are accepting those conditions. If your boss's conditions includes working from home, and your home environment is not safe (though why you would even live there if that's the case is beyond me), then it is up to you to submit conditions of your own that list ergonomic furniture and equipment. But bringing in the might of the US government in the guise of OSHA to demand your conditions (under pain of fine or imprisonment) is pretty heavy-handed.