First of all where the fsck did this RIGHT to look at software come from?
That would be from the GPL
This also implies that the GPL is meant to be applied to people who are actually given the software or receive it in some way. I am not certain that Slade's program is being distributed to it's users and thus qualifies to have its source viewed on request.
The modified/patched GPL'ed source is being distributed. By distributed I mean that it is being offered to others. Specifically it is being offered via a web-site that has a "Click to accept this agreement button." It is being distributed.
If people like you claiming that they have the right to see the source code so they can cheat at Quake are the kind of people that have been emailing Slade for the source no wonder he is pissed.
Whatever. Slade is pissed because he is not being allowed to violate a very clear agreement that he made when he distributed GPL'ed code.
In the original post, I said...great monarchies of Continental Europe in the first part of this century... The French Revolution is not in that time span. And England is not on the Continent. You should read (or think) more carefully.
Well, in your original post you were claiming that it was not true that power-elites would hang on to power at all costs.
It's not really true to assert that "power structures" will do anything to maintain their position of power.
This universal statement was then justified by a single specific example which I will check up on now. You are dismissing the general claim that power structures hang on to power. In order to do this convincingly you have to show a clear trend - namely a large number of cases in which power-elites voluntarily relinquished power. Alternatively I can cast doubt on your dismissal by pointing out that the majority of power transitions that one sees are the result of violence and revolution. I gave you two nice clear ones - they did not have to be restricted to the locale and time in which you claim to find a single supporting example for your position. You should read (or think) more carefully.Excellent advice - may I recommend it to you also? Perhaps if you expended your energies on a generous and intelligent appraisal of the argument rather than directing personal attacks you would be able to do this?
Ad hominem means, literally, at or to the man. I attacked his arguments and a word he used. A hypothetical ad hominem attack would have been more like "Tilde, you are a colossal dumbass, even dumber than crush!"
Your shallow pedantry obscures your motives only from yourself. Ad hominem is defined in the Concise OED as:
1relating to or associated with a particular person
2(of an argument) appealing to the emotions and not to reason [L = to the person]
You derided his/her comments by saying that they were "cynical", "regurgitated Marxism", "no substitute for original thought" and that his/her language choice was inappropriate unless he was a graduate student. None of those strike me as rational arguments.
Your further exposition on the British Empire reveals that you must believe that they surrendered it "voluntarily". In order to understand how you use this word (which cannot be the ordinary or common usage of "not constrained or compulsory") I must point out the following about the collapse of the British Empire. For as long as the Empire existed there were rebellions that were forcibly suppressed. This was opposed by dissidents within Britain, there was a strong moral objection on the part of many liberals and socialists to the subjugation and oppression of other nations and peoples. There was also forcible opposition within the countries of the empire. India, as the jewel in the crown, provides the best example. An example of popular mass resistance which eventually convinced the British that the country was ungovernable and that they thus had no option but to leave. You've got to prove your point. Your ball.
One of the wants of the insurgents in France was the removal of the monarchy altogether. To satisfy the wants of the revolutionaries, Louis XVI stepped down from the throne
Aside from the accuracy of this post the question is whether or not he would have stepped down without there being insurgents. That is the only thing that would convince me that he was acting in the best interests of the country as opposed to self-interest. It sounds noble and grand to talk about one's actions being motivated by selflessness, yet when one has no option but to act in that way there is little force in such sentiments. I have no doubt that Louis thought that he was God's gift to the French people, but this doesn't prove that he was relinquishing power voluntarily - he in fact, as your post documents, had to be compelled by insurgents. --Crush
Yes, your version is much better supported by the following evidence (as opposed to your ad hominem attack on the poster "Tilde"):
French Revolution, 1789 The generous voluntary abdication of the monarchy by the enlightened monarchists issued in a new, more efficient society which Marie Antoinette and her consort had determined would advance the development of science, human rights and happiness. Cynics should note that this was at great personal cost to themselves
Irish Revolution, 1916The British monarchy realized that they were oppressing the population of Ireland needlessly and organized a civilized and voluntary withdrawal of their armed forces (from part of the island) whilst ceding the estates of the landed gentry back to the republican peasants
I really couldn't be bothered to go on....if Tilde is cynical then history is cynical
Yet again a highly readable article from Jamie. I'm really enjoying this new aspect of/. There is an interesting perspective on memes from Susan Blackmore in Skeptic Vol.5 No.2 entitled "The Power of the Meme Meme", pg.43 1997 which might be interesting for those into this stuff. --Crush
It's useful because it associates ideas explicitly with their evolution as reproducing entities in the human brain environment. You could just substitute a cumbersome phrase such as "ideas which are encapsulated units and are understood to proliferate differentially due to their having "hooks" that facilitate this", but "meme" is a lot shorter. So I don't think it's fair to say that it's to be an 3l33t d4rw1n br41n h4x0r. I don't know that I agree that the 1/million is really a meme though, it seems more like this is just an epiphenomenon of the censorship meme.
Well, it wasn't me, and I don't feel that way, but if you feel hard done by (now that you're at 5) take a look at the very first post where "X", also asking about interactiveness, is still moderated as a Troll - beats me. --Crush
Many of us on the web perceive ourselves as being part of something new, something exciting, something different. Those that are involved in Open Source or Free Software probably tend towards believing that because of the success of this approach in producing working code that it is a paradigm for other areas of human endeavour. However this may not be true: to examine your own area of expertise I would like to ask the following:
Given that succesful politics is heavily driven by money do you feel that there will really be any difference between the internet and any other medium? Specifically will it not be the case that the candidate with the most money will be able to afford more bandwidth, more mirrors, faster servers with more memory and thus dominate the medium?
What policies should be implemented by the candidates to ensure that the web is a democracy enhancing medium? Specifically I'm interested in the issue of governmental control of the web turning it into a means of control as per the recent example of Burma instituting prison sentences for unlicensed computers
Given that there is a wider structure beyond merely "the net", which is the community of hackers who have created this technology, what policies should the candidates pursue to ensure that this community remains vibrant and innovative (I'm thinking here about avoiding laws that stifle innovation and turn hackers into involuntary criminals like Jon inthe DeCSS scandal)
I know that's a lot there but hopefully you can answer some of it. Thanks --Crush
Untrue. The code/means-of-production are available to all of us. It's out there now and I'm working with it as are a large number of other people. It has already been handed over to us.
Communism is really nothing more than the principle that resources are to be considered common property. There is no morally acceptable rationale for someone being able to sequester resources. The USSR, China, Vietnam, N.Korea etc etc are all implementations of state capitalism which is a specific attempt to implement the ideal of communism through this mechanism - or so they claim. To claim that the idea of
Each gives according to his ability and takes according to his needs" is specifically Marxist is not correct. That idea is much older, and is more properly termed communism. So, the order of inclusive sets would be:
Communism There are very old traditions of the principle of holding things in common widely spread across different ethnographic groups
Socialism There were plenty of theorists on the scene before Marx cropped up who considered the obligations of indivduals to each other that forms a society
Marxism Anarchism is an alternative at this level of the typological hierarchy. The most vociferous critic of Marx was Bakunin who believed that Marx was too authoritarian and that in paying too much attention to the end goal of communism Marx was falling into the trap of using methods which would ultimately make this non-acheivable. This lead to the split of the First Working Men's International
Bolshevism Bolshevists were the majority of those that adhered to the principles of Marxism. They believed in immediate revolution, the use of force and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The alternative was Menshevism which disagreed on these points and others to varying degrees. Other alternatives included (I think, I'm not sure how much of Marxist ideology they accepted) the ideas of the Social Revolutionaries (I get the impression that they may have been essentially social-democrats but I'm really ignorant on their policies)
Marxist-Leninism Alternatives at this level are Democratic Socialism and Trotskyism. The former asserted that there was no necessity for a revolution and that change could be acheived through the mechanism that had been set up by the capitalists to control society - representative democracy and the law. Trotskyists are hard for me to pigeon-hole as they adhere to most tenets of ML that I can see yet appear to have been even more authoritarian
Maoism, Castroism and Stalinism
We all know the effects of these, but they differ in many respects from a strict interpretation of ML. However they are more like it than not in the sense that they are
command economies in which there is nominal (only!) ownership of the means of production by the workers. The nice government holds things in trust for the workers who have yet to reach "political maturity" and develop a "political consciousnee" at which point everything gets turned over to them (!). It is interesting that this "stewardship" of the resources by the Party was implemented by the Bolsheviks very early on even though there were fully democratic Soviets where wokers had organized themselves and were running factories without any need for outside interference. The Bolsheviks didn't trust them and persuaded them to relinquish their power.
Anyway, my short point is that the GPL results in a situation like the simplest, original meaning of communism. It's definitely not Marxism and it's not the bogeyman that the US has been fighting for years.
A short but acurate definition of communism: From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Or if you don't like that, how about : that which is held in common? Sounds damn like GPL'ed software ends up being damn like communism according to that definition of it. Perhaps you're getting confused with ideas about gulags and state capitalism and authoritarianism? One has rights and responsibilities under communism too - many would argue that you have fairer more useful ones!
I know I'm probably going to get an automatic negative karma for daring to disagree with libertarianism, but I'd like you to consider this objection to the following statements:
I disagree that open source is necessarily communist. Many others including myself and most notably Eric Raymond, have asserted that Open Source is really more Libertarian than communist. One of the key issues in this difference is ownership. Take the WordNet definition: 1. a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership On the other hand, the Open Source community does have the concept of ownership. Do you exclude GPL'ed Free software (the kernel and most of the utilities and a large number of applications) from the set of code that is Open Source? No? OK, then - who owns the GPL'ed code sitting running your machine at the moment?. You may well be correct that the Open Source people are more keen on allowing private ownership, in fact that's what many suspect them of (else why change it from Free if not to shift the emphasis?), however as it would appear that somehow or other Free Software is included in this you can't get away from the fact that Free software is communally shared - there is no single, hoarding, controlling owner. This is much closer to the idea of communism that libertarianism. Under libertarianism you would be negotiating with several other thousands of coders for the rights to use their contributions and would be tied up in insanely complex individual arrangements. Libertarianism is taking the valuable idea of individualism to a ludicrous and non-workable extreme.
I take it then that you're a pro-labor camp Kommunist? Look, let me make it simpler for you - the pre-roasted pigs was the option you were supposed to choose. Jeezus, can't you people not even see your own self-interest (enlightened that is) when it's staring you in the face - BTW we Ayn Rand followers prefer to be known as Randroids.
No,no,no that's not the way that it works. See, the market takes care of it all - the FCC realizes this and doesn't want to upset the magic forces that result in wealth for everyone. Think about it, which do you want: 1. A land of the free market where companies give you machines to play on and pigs run around pre-roasted with forks sticking out of them and beer flows from natural springs or 2. A nasty government regulated welfare state where everyone has to work in a labour camp? Well, which is it?
Yup, another excellent reason to be cautious about this stuff. Funny that neither of us is the simplistic caricature the previous poster constructed. There's also the rainbow/brown trout problem in Uk/Ireland with fish-farms, the zebra-muscle, rhododendrons in the UK ( a major pain in the ass for foresters - not literally), cane toads in Australia. All these were rapid introductions of novel species.
Yes, you apparently read the article unlike the poster submitter and editors. No, too harsh there, let's take a more happy view - they were all sleep-deprived and their parietals didn't pull them back up to normal - that sucks.
Well this is pretty off topic, but here goes anyway.
As a molecular evolutionist I am aware of the point that you make. All you are doing however is picking out the literal meaning of the phrase Genetically Modified and ignoring the fact that it is used in a very specific context now by those both pro and anti the idea of changing the genome of organisms by methods other than selective breeding.
Personally I am opposed to the idea of GM (in it's common non-pedantic usage) foods, but not for the reason that you posit .the breeding is just as likely to cause harmful characteristics as the engineering. Rather for the reason that many anti-GM proponents have expressed - namely that it allows a more controlled, uniform, patentable life. This is of course sweet music to the ears of large corporations who would love to have uniform yields and drug-responses and control over the leasing and licensing of these life-forms. Personally, I'd rather see things been done on a more ad-hoc basis as they are now with repositories of genetic information being built up and controlled by governmental institutions whose mandate is to preserve them for all humans (like the FAO). Add to this that uniformity is inherently a dangerous thing as it will remove flexibility of a species to respond to new environmental challenges, be they viral, bacterial or ecological and the fact that the practice of monoculture goes hand in hand with intensive farming which usually means environmental destruction. So, don't assume that all anti-GM people are arguing the simplistic line that you are attacking!
Then, if it is disgraceful in the philosopher to be unable, when a doctor speaks about the sick, either to follow his remarks or to contribute anything of his own to what is being said or done, and to be in the same case when any other of the craftsmen speaks, is it not disgraceful that he should be unable, when it is a judge or a king or some other of the persons whom we have just instanced, either to follow their words or contribute anything to their business?It must indeed be disgraceful, Socrates, to have nothing to contribute to subjects of such great importance! Plato Lovers - Loeb tr.
In the next place our business transactions one with another will require proper regulation. The following will serve for a comprehensive rule:--as far as possible, no one shall touch my goods nor move them in the slightest degree, if he has in no wise at all got my consent; and I must act in like manner regarding the goods of all other men Plato Laws - Loeb tr.
Never bought one either. Also, couldn't be bothered to get one for free. We've been given the damn things and promptly donated them to charities. If I want to see a movie I go out to do it (although I've started a boycott of that now damn it!). About 50% of the food in the US is gentetically modified and that probably means that yes, your pizza is. You are one of those strange folks.
He's dead wrong about not having a TV affecting your career, you get more time to work and play without it and you get superior news content from NPR.
It is nearly a mantra among us that there is no security through obscurity. It would seem that with a sufficient number of us too lazy or too ignorant to secure our own machines that there is possibly no security through openness either. Do you think that the open research model that Mixter, Farmer and others have always advanced as a reason for releasing their tools is still justified?
Well, the cheapest that I've seen a 486 for is $40 and that was without a monitor. Maybe I'm not loooking in the right places. Even if you are correct and pick up a $9 486 then you've got to include the cost of connection for a year, books, floppies - it all adds up.
Second, if you are correct that the cost would be $9 for a 486 then it merely serves to bolster my point - people can get a machine easily and become technologically literate. B.t.w. would you care to tell me what computer show it was that you saw the $9 486's ? I'd like a couple of them (sure that it wasn't the case? )
Slashdot Mirror
I laughed, I cried ! Great.
First of all where the fsck did this RIGHT to look at software come from?
That would be from the GPL
This also implies that the GPL is meant to be applied to people who are actually given the software or receive it in some way. I am not certain that Slade's program is being distributed to it's users and thus qualifies to have its source viewed on request.
The modified/patched GPL'ed source is being distributed. By distributed I mean that it is being offered to others. Specifically it is being offered via a web-site that has a "Click to accept this agreement button." It is being distributed.
If people like you claiming that they have the right to see the source code so they can cheat at Quake are the kind of people that have been emailing Slade for the source no wonder he is pissed.
Whatever. Slade is pissed because he is not being allowed to violate a very clear agreement that he made when he distributed GPL'ed code.
In the original post, I said ...great monarchies of Continental Europe in the first part of this century... The French Revolution is not in that time span. And England is not on the Continent. You should read (or think) more carefully.
Well, in your original post you were claiming that it was not true that power-elites would hang on to power at all costs.
It's not really true to assert that "power structures" will do anything to maintain their position of power.
This universal statement was then justified by a single specific example which I will check up on now. You are dismissing the general claim that power structures hang on to power. In order to do this convincingly you have to show a clear trend - namely a large number of cases in which power-elites voluntarily relinquished power. Alternatively I can cast doubt on your dismissal by pointing out that the majority of power transitions that one sees are the result of violence and revolution. I gave you two nice clear ones - they did not have to be restricted to the locale and time in which you claim to find a single supporting example for your position.
You should read (or think) more carefully.Excellent advice - may I recommend it to you also? Perhaps if you expended your energies on a generous and intelligent appraisal of the argument rather than directing personal attacks you would be able to do this?
Ad hominem means, literally, at or to the man. I attacked his arguments and a word he used. A hypothetical ad hominem attack would have been more like "Tilde, you are a colossal dumbass, even dumber than crush!"
Your shallow pedantry obscures your motives only from yourself. Ad hominem is defined in the Concise OED as:
You derided his/her comments by saying that they were "cynical", "regurgitated Marxism", "no substitute for original thought" and that his/her language choice was inappropriate unless he was a graduate student. None of those strike me as rational arguments.
Your further exposition on the British Empire reveals that you must believe that they surrendered it "voluntarily". In order to understand how you use this word (which cannot be the ordinary or common usage of "not constrained or compulsory") I must point out the following about the collapse of the British Empire. For as long as the Empire existed there were rebellions that were forcibly suppressed. This was opposed by dissidents within Britain, there was a strong moral objection on the part of many liberals and socialists to the subjugation and oppression of other nations and peoples. There was also forcible opposition within the countries of the empire. India, as the jewel in the crown, provides the best example. An example of popular mass resistance which eventually convinced the British that the country was ungovernable and that they thus had no option but to leave.
You've got to prove your point. Your ball.
One of the wants of the insurgents in France was the removal of the monarchy altogether. To satisfy the wants of the revolutionaries, Louis XVI stepped down from the throne
Aside from the accuracy of this post the question is whether or not he would have stepped down without there being insurgents. That is the only thing that would convince me that he was acting in the best interests of the country as opposed to self-interest. It sounds noble and grand to talk about one's actions being motivated by selflessness, yet when one has no option but to act in that way there is little force in such sentiments. I have no doubt that Louis thought that he was God's gift to the French people, but this doesn't prove that he was relinquishing power voluntarily - he in fact, as your post documents, had to be compelled by insurgents.
--Crush
The generous voluntary abdication of the monarchy by the enlightened monarchists issued in a new, more efficient society which Marie Antoinette and her consort had determined would advance the development of science, human rights and happiness. Cynics should note that this was at great personal cost to themselves
--Crush
Yet again a highly readable article from Jamie. I'm really enjoying this new aspect of /. There is an interesting perspective on memes from Susan Blackmore in Skeptic Vol.5 No.2 entitled "The Power of the Meme Meme", pg.43 1997 which might be interesting for those into this stuff.
--Crush
It's useful because it associates ideas explicitly with their evolution as reproducing entities in the human brain environment. You could just substitute a cumbersome phrase such as "ideas which are encapsulated units and are understood to proliferate differentially due to their having "hooks" that facilitate this", but "meme" is a lot shorter. So I don't think it's fair to say that it's to be an 3l33t d4rw1n br41n h4x0r. I don't know that I agree that the 1/million is really a meme though, it seems more like this is just an epiphenomenon of the censorship meme.
Well, it wasn't me, and I don't feel that way, but if you feel hard done by (now that you're at 5) take a look at the very first post where "X", also asking about interactiveness, is still moderated as a Troll - beats me.
--Crush
I know that's a lot there but hopefully you can answer some of it.
Thanks
--Crush
Untrue. The code/means-of-production are available to all of us. It's out there now and I'm working with it as are a large number of other people. It has already been handed over to us.
OK, I totally concur with your post. I shouldn't have added the line that you object to.
Crush
Each gives according to his ability and takes according to his needs" is specifically Marxist is not correct. That idea is much older, and is more properly termed communism. So, the order of inclusive sets would be:
There are very old traditions of the principle of holding things in common widely spread across different ethnographic groups
There were plenty of theorists on the scene before Marx cropped up who considered the obligations of indivduals to each other that forms a society
Anarchism is an alternative at this level of the typological hierarchy. The most vociferous critic of Marx was Bakunin who believed that Marx was too authoritarian and that in paying too much attention to the end goal of communism Marx was falling into the trap of using methods which would ultimately make this non-acheivable. This lead to the split of the First Working Men's International
Bolshevists were the majority of those that adhered to the principles of Marxism. They believed in immediate revolution, the use of force and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The alternative was Menshevism which disagreed on these points and others to varying degrees. Other alternatives included (I think, I'm not sure how much of Marxist ideology they accepted) the ideas of the Social Revolutionaries (I get the impression that they may have been essentially social-democrats but I'm really ignorant on their policies)
Alternatives at this level are Democratic Socialism and Trotskyism. The former asserted that there was no necessity for a revolution and that change could be acheived through the mechanism that had been set up by the capitalists to control society - representative democracy and the law. Trotskyists are hard for me to pigeon-hole as they adhere to most tenets of ML that I can see yet appear to have been even more authoritarian
Anyway, my short point is that the GPL results in a situation like the simplest, original meaning of communism. It's definitely not Marxism and it's not the bogeyman that the US has been fighting for years.
A short but acurate definition of communism: From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Or if you don't like that, how about : that which is held in common? Sounds damn like GPL'ed software ends up being damn like communism according to that definition of it. Perhaps you're getting confused with ideas about gulags and state capitalism and authoritarianism? One has rights and responsibilities under communism too - many would argue that you have fairer more useful ones!
I disagree that open source is necessarily communist. Many others including myself and most notably Eric Raymond, have asserted that Open Source is really more Libertarian than communist. One of the key issues in this difference is ownership. Take the WordNet definition: 1. a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership On the other hand, the Open Source community does have the concept of ownership.
Do you exclude GPL'ed Free software (the kernel and most of the utilities and a large number of applications) from the set of code that is Open Source?
No? OK, then - who owns the GPL'ed code sitting running your machine at the moment?.
You may well be correct that the Open Source people are more keen on allowing private ownership, in fact that's what many suspect them of (else why change it from Free if not to shift the emphasis?), however as it would appear that somehow or other Free Software is included in this you can't get away from the fact that Free software is communally shared - there is no single, hoarding, controlling owner. This is much closer to the idea of communism that libertarianism. Under libertarianism you would be negotiating with several other thousands of coders for the rights to use their contributions and would be tied up in insanely complex individual arrangements. Libertarianism is taking the valuable idea of individualism to a ludicrous and non-workable extreme.
Sorry, that would be mussel!
Crush
I take it then that you're a pro-labor camp Kommunist? Look, let me make it simpler for you - the pre-roasted pigs was the option you were supposed to choose. Jeezus, can't you people not even see your own self-interest (enlightened that is) when it's staring you in the face - BTW we Ayn Rand followers prefer to be known as Randroids.
No,no,no that's not the way that it works. See, the market takes care of it all - the FCC realizes this and doesn't want to upset the magic forces that result in wealth for everyone. Think about it, which do you want:
1. A land of the free market where companies give you machines to play on and pigs run around pre-roasted with forks sticking out of them and beer flows from natural springs
or
2. A nasty government regulated welfare state where everyone has to work in a labour camp?
Well, which is it?
Yup, another excellent reason to be cautious about this stuff. Funny that neither of us is the simplistic caricature the previous poster constructed. There's also the rainbow/brown trout problem in Uk/Ireland with fish-farms, the zebra-muscle, rhododendrons in the UK ( a major pain in the ass for foresters - not literally), cane toads in Australia. All these were rapid introductions of novel species.
Yes, you apparently read the article unlike the poster submitter and editors. No, too harsh there, let's take a more happy view - they were all sleep-deprived and their parietals didn't pull them back up to normal - that sucks.
Well this is pretty off topic, but here goes anyway.
As a molecular evolutionist I am aware of the point that you make. All you are doing however is picking out the literal meaning of the phrase Genetically Modified and ignoring the fact that it is used in a very specific context now by those both pro and anti the idea of changing the genome of organisms by methods other than selective breeding.
Personally I am opposed to the idea of GM (in it's common non-pedantic usage) foods, but not for the reason that you posit
.the breeding is just as likely to cause harmful characteristics as the engineering.
Rather for the reason that many anti-GM proponents have expressed - namely that it allows a more controlled, uniform, patentable life. This is of course sweet music to the ears of large corporations who would love to have uniform yields and drug-responses and control over the leasing and licensing of these life-forms. Personally, I'd rather see things been done on a more ad-hoc basis as they are now with repositories of genetic information being built up and controlled by governmental institutions whose mandate is to preserve them for all humans (like the FAO). Add to this that uniformity is inherently a dangerous thing as it will remove flexibility of a species to respond to new environmental challenges, be they viral, bacterial or ecological and the fact that the practice of monoculture goes hand in hand with intensive farming which usually means environmental destruction. So, don't assume that all anti-GM people are arguing the simplistic line that you are attacking!
Then, if it is disgraceful in the philosopher to be unable, when a doctor speaks about the sick, either to follow his remarks or to contribute anything of his own to what is being said or done, and to be in the same case when any other of the craftsmen speaks, is it not disgraceful that he should be unable, when it is a judge or a king or some other of the persons whom we have just instanced, either to follow their words or contribute anything to their business?It must indeed be disgraceful, Socrates, to have nothing to contribute to subjects of such great importance!
Plato Lovers - Loeb tr.
In the next place our business transactions one with another will require proper regulation. The following will serve for a comprehensive rule:--as far as possible, no one shall touch my goods nor move them in the slightest degree, if he has in no wise at all got my consent; and I must act in like manner regarding the goods of all other men
Plato Laws - Loeb tr.
He's dead wrong about not having a TV affecting your career, you get more time to work and play without it and you get superior news content from NPR.
It is nearly a mantra among us that there is no security through obscurity. It would seem that with a sufficient number of us too lazy or too ignorant to secure our own machines that there is possibly no security through openness either. Do you think that the open research model that Mixter, Farmer and others have always advanced as a reason for releasing their tools is still justified?
Crush
Second, if you are correct that the cost would be $9 for a 486 then it merely serves to bolster my point - people can get a machine easily and become technologically literate. B.t.w. would you care to tell me what computer show it was that you saw the $9 486's ? I'd like a couple of them (sure that it wasn't the case? )
Crush