The only things i like better in the US is the non-requirement of the identity card (though you need to know your SSN Try getting about in California without a Dept. of Motor Vehicles I.D. card. They scan your thumbprint, digitized signature and photograph. If you want to write a check, buy alcohol, prove who you are it is the only ID that many places accept. You are not _required_ to have one, you just won't be able to do anything without it: freedom curls its claws quietly about us!
Rachael, a lot of other people replying to this post have intimated that you are smoking crack. I don't think so - I feel they are attempting to ridicule your position which, whilst naive, ignorant and unthinking, doesn't manifest the completely addled perspective of a crack smoker. Regards, Crush
Why? what's wrong with the cows in Europe? Unfortunately there is a small problem called Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) which means that a lot of europeans don't want to eat much beef. Naturally, this widespread problem which has been identified in wild populations of moose,deer,foxes etc. in N.America doesn't occur in Mom's beefburgers!
Capitalist/Free Market "anarchism" is in essence Libertarianism. I think the poster several levels up that described the difference between typological categories based on economies and those based on political systems hit the nail on the head. This gives the lie to your assertion that "Anarchism is by definition socialist in nature". Nope, it's just the assertion that there should be no principle of unquestioned obedience to an authority. I do agree with your _sentiment_,however, that it is rather odd that anyone should seek to ally anarchism with the free-market. It seems to surrender autonomy to the dictatorship of system driven by irrational forces, unpredictableness and motivated by and stimulating of the basest of human motivations. Oh well, it takes all kinds.
What about what people found with the Stasi in the FDR (E.Germany) after the wall came down? It seemed like they were trying with 1950's technology to record and intercept communications of a huge proportion of their citizens and all sorts of people were informing on each other. Apparently a lot of the transcripts of these spy sessions were sold to the U.S. and the Germans now want them back (they don't even know exactly what they are trying to have returned). Some of the information that was captured after the wall came down revealed that there were all sorts of incredible situations of spouses informing on each other (Petra Kelly (sp?) of the Die Grune and her husband), etc. So, I guess I'm asking, perhaps there is actually a use to all this? You set up a paranoid unpleasant situation, give people the chance to screw each other over, and then as the arbiter (you the government) have psychological control over your subverted citizens.
I love it! Have you ever read Robert D. Hare's book "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psycopaths Among Us" ? He makes a parallel argument to the one that you do - namely that there are people devoid of natural empathy who are very manipulative and charming and lack fear, thus being willing to take high risks. When stupid these people become low-life con-men, but when clever they have _exactly_ the qualities that would make for selective success in our system: cool-headed, risk-taking, ambitious and unscrupulous!
Great post. I am glad that I read the comments below the original "article", which told me nothing. I suppose that one reason that capitalized neologisms might have become popular is that they would be clearly distinguished from ordinary typographical errors when embedded in ordinary speech.
Isn't it the case that at least a significant proportion of researchers identify through the presence of oxidized ferrous minerals a pre-oxygen environment? One of the more popular scenarios is that micro-organisms that don't need oxygen flourished in anaerobic conditions and then the release of oxygen as a waste by-product stimulated the development of organisms that were shielded from it by membranes etc. and were able to utilize this "waste" in their metabolic cycles. Also I am confused about your statement that the Miller experiment relied on a "reducing atmosphere" yet "as far back as we look we find oxidized material". Could you set me straight about reduced vs. oxidized ? Thanks.
This is NOT an experiment about evolution. It's just trying to mix and match from what is there already. Venter's team is just copying what they see out there which may have been create by God on Sunday 10:05 am 4000 B.C. or which has evolved starting with simple chemical reactions 3.5 billion years ago.
Could you cite a reference for the systematic removal of genes to create a 'minimalist bacterium' ? I am aware that there have been plenty of knock-out mutation studies done to isolate simple phenotype dependencies on genes, but I was not aware of systematic knock-outs on one species. Thanks.
....what you say is only partially true. If the target of your very psycho-analytic piece is _only_ the "world-domination types" then it is probably true that these are people that are exhibiting a desire to be different or elite. I think though that these are a small portion of Linux users, a large number of the rest are neither hackers ( and b.t.w. you left Stallman out of your list of luminaries ) nor developers. They are users of the OS for tasks. They are using Linux because it _is_ better for their needs. Your analysis trivializes and ignores the fact that a Free tool _is_ a better tool because it can be adapted, and when there are so many people including skilled hackers using it the chances are that the adaptations that one wants are done at least partially implemented. The idea of a centrally-developed one-size-fits-all non-Free operating system sounds fine until you realize that the inherent limitations in that model are that commercial considerations lead in fact to one-size-fits-all-uncomfortably. You take a pot-shot at HURD. Well, all I can say is that if it works better I'll be using it! Interesting article. Thanks.
Even if there were a "single purpose" virus the problem is there is not perfect copying of the "program" to its descendants, this generation of variation by mutation could lead to new "programs" that do things that were not originally intended. The worth of this project is going to be that it will be possible to change specific parts of the program and see what they actually do under a range of environmental conditions, plus it will allow specific strategies to be tested against strains that are _known_ to have particular properties initially.
This is definitely the way that science _should_ go for two interlocked reasons: 1. the dissemination of information is retarded by the current system: 2. a central mechanism of science is unduly influenced by commercial considerations.
Its probable that the historical development of our publishing mechanisms ( private societies hiring publishers is essentially an outgrowth of the vanity-press and the inherently high material cost was born by gentlemen-scientists and their associations) coupled to the need for stability in the social evaluation of scientific merit has led to many non-rational, non-ideal features which need re-designing. Obviously the reduction of the material costs of publishing _should_ lead to lower journal prices and hence easier access to information. Do we really want to retard the development of science in universities/countries that are too poor to pay for information? The idea of originality and intelligence being wasted so that a company can make a buck is revolting.
It would be quite a problem to achieve this though. The most likely way for it to succeed would be with backing from established influential leaders in the field who were motivated by ideological considerations. Hope it happens!
Many of the posts on this topic have empathized with the Britich government and its security agencies for undertaking this surveillance. This is not the point. I think most of us understand why they would want to attempt to counteract terrorist threats. The issue is whether "by any means necessary" is acceptable in a functioning democracy. I feel that this has been one unrecognized aspect of the damage that the IRA has caused to citizens of both of the involved states: there have been a large number of draconian laws enacted which erode the liberties of citizens. The effect of this in the past has been that we have had censorship in both the UK and Rep. of Ireland, the adoption of the principle that silence under questioning can be taken as evidence of guilt, the corruption of police and security agencies desperate to solve a war by super-legal methods and the gradual and persistent erosion of public insistence on the sovereign rights of the citizen. I do not believe that we should place these tools in the hand of government. A previous poster relied on Congressional oversight to act as a check or balance on the use of these tools. That is asking the guardians to guard themselves and there is ample recent historical evidence that this does not work. So, we should reject this on two counts: firstly it is too dangerous to our democracies, secondly it does not work to prevent terrorist threats anyway.
insulting, rude, bully, freedom
on
GNU Inside?
·
· Score: 4
"for him to infringe on my freedom to call it anything I want irks me."
Thanks to the liberal, open-minded scheme that GNU utilities are distributed under you can call it _anything_you_like. You are not being prevented from calling it_anything_you_like. RMS is merely stating his viewpoint that more credit should be given to the GNU project. You are insisting that HE capitulates to what YOU want to call the system that you run every day. To stridently attack someone for stating their viewpoint, as you do in this post, belies your claim to love freedom. Or perhaps its just YOUR freedom that you care about? Do you agree that there is a move afoot to submerge the "political" ideals of the FSF underneath a welter of new acronyms that are more "friendly" to business? Do you agree that there is a chance that the structure of the programming community could develop in very different ways depending on which ideals have hegemony? I was particularly irritated by your post because the very things that you accuse RMS of are embodied in your own post. Further, it follows on from a particularly trite and irritating article that expresses conservative shibboleths: the idea that ANY debate over language is "political correctness" and that this is in itself a bad thing; the idea that one can label those that see the world in a different way as "political" and that they are therefore "extreme". All these merely add up to saying "stop disagreeing with me, shut up and let me win". RMS is caricatured frequently and freely whenever his views are discussed. It doesn't matter if any of these characterizations are based in fact, all that matters is the logical correctness or otherwise of the arguments. I put it to you that to have contributed such a huge chunk of the distributions that we use and to receive no overt recognition of this is insulting and demeaning to RMS and all of the FSF programmers and writers. Anyway brother, live wild and free in the programming Utopia created for you by other people, but whatever you do don't lose sight of the fact that there is a history to it and that there will be a future which depends on what you believe.
I agree that there is a lack of rigour in the definitions of "modularity" and hence a confusion in classifications that use this term. I don't understand your "innativity vs. adaptivity" though: I see adaptation as a process that results in, and acts on, innate structures. Perhaps you are using adaptive in some other sense? Is this a common one in cog.sci.? My perspective comes exclusively from molecular evolution.
Although I agree with you that there is a problem with the utopian "it'll all work itself out becuase OpenSource is better" attitude and that there needs to be organization I think you are reading a bit too much into the response. It is legitimate to be suspicious of anyone offering to lead. Help, now that's a different thing!
While this was a capably written, if somewhat prolix piece, I found it hard to agree with some of the assumptions of the author. Foremost among these is the idea that "open-source" must grow to become a broader consumer phenomenon.
>Open code software faces some formidable >challenges if it is to grow and become a broader >consumer phenomenon
This proposition is at the base of the whole essay, and is often mentioned in/.ers posts. Although I realize that it would be nice for those of us who work in non-Linux shops to be able to point to something that suits could understand I don't believe that is , or should be the primary urge at the base of the movement. And if what is meant by "world domination" is that Linux is the only or primary OS in use then I think that is an even less legitimate goal. The purpose of "Free" software should be just that, freedom to choose. If someone wants WinXX instead or MacYY then they should be able to use that. My desire is to be able to continue to hack on GPL'ed code. It is nice that so many other people are using it, but I don't insist that they do. More importantly than this admittedly selfish viewpoint is the problem of what might have to happen to "Free Software" in order to be able to "succeed" in the "free market." Already this essay wishes to develop a "brand name" for OS projects because they think that "consumers" can only identify with brand names. I agree. However, I believe that instead of dumbing down free-software to create more passive consumers of technology we should be using this as an educative opportunity. People should be learning. They should be contributing. They should be enjoying. The alternative is being herded like dumb sheep by newspeak Harvard intellectuals. In one breath they sing the liberatory praises of "Open Code" (TM yet?) and on the other they start organizing their presidency of the already-quite-nicely-functioning-without-you community. I humbly submit that if they really want to help then they should start writing out some large endowment checks to the FSF to help with the inevitable law-suits that are going to happen. I also disagree with several substantive points in this piece:
1.Among the barriers it faces are the lack of popularly accessible documentation and technical support;
If the HOW-TOs are not popularly accessible then I don't know what is. Failing that one could buy some of the dreaded O'Reilly books which are quite excellent on many subjects.
2. the lack of a clear, well-known brand identity and marketing support; Linux(TM) anyone?
3.a susceptibility to code-forking that can vitiate the development process; Contrary to their definition of code-forking (they equate it with proprietary sequestration) it is a natural and sometimes useful result of open development. If a sufficient number of people think that the development of the project is mis-directed they can head off on their own. The best resulting code will win - this is the Bazaar!!!!
I agree that there should be consideration given to where we are going, what our goals are, how to acheive them etc. I take the point that many movements have failed in the past and many communities have been squashed because they were less organized and self-aware than outside forces, I agree that there needs to be a certain amount of cohesiveness about central goals. I I don't agree that we need Harvard Law School to do this for us. I don't agree that the goal of the Free Software movement should be creation of consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
The only things i like better in the US is the non-requirement of the identity card (though you need to know your SSN
Try getting about in California without a Dept. of Motor Vehicles I.D. card. They scan your thumbprint, digitized signature and photograph. If you want to write a check, buy alcohol, prove who you are it is the only ID that many places accept. You are not _required_ to have one, you just won't be able to do anything without it: freedom curls its claws quietly about us!
Rachael, a lot of other people replying to this post have intimated that you are smoking crack. I don't think so - I feel they are attempting to ridicule your position which, whilst naive, ignorant and unthinking, doesn't manifest the completely addled perspective of a crack smoker.
Regards,
Crush
Why? what's wrong with the cows in Europe?
Unfortunately there is a small problem called Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) which means that a lot of europeans don't want to eat much beef. Naturally, this widespread problem which has been identified in wild populations of moose,deer,foxes etc. in N.America doesn't occur in Mom's beefburgers!
Did you mean minutiae? ;)
Capitalist/Free Market "anarchism" is in essence Libertarianism. I think the poster several levels up that described the difference between typological categories based on economies and those based on political systems hit the nail on the head. This gives the lie to your assertion that "Anarchism is by definition socialist in nature". Nope, it's just the assertion that there should be no principle of unquestioned obedience to an authority. I do agree with your _sentiment_ ,however, that it is rather odd that anyone should seek to ally anarchism with the free-market. It seems to surrender autonomy to the dictatorship of system driven by irrational forces, unpredictableness and motivated by and stimulating of the basest of human motivations. Oh well, it takes all kinds.
Shouldn't that have been BDR? Sorry.
What about what people found with the Stasi in the FDR (E.Germany) after the wall came down? It seemed like they were trying with 1950's technology to record and intercept communications of a huge proportion of their citizens and all sorts of people were informing on each other. Apparently a lot of the transcripts of these spy sessions were sold to the U.S. and the Germans now want them back (they don't even know exactly what they are trying to have returned). Some of the information that was captured after the wall came down revealed that there were all sorts of incredible situations of spouses informing on each other (Petra Kelly (sp?) of the Die Grune and her husband), etc. So, I guess I'm asking, perhaps there is actually a use to all this? You set up a paranoid unpleasant situation, give people the chance to screw each other over, and then as the arbiter (you the government) have psychological control over your subverted citizens.
I love it! Have you ever read Robert D. Hare's book "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psycopaths Among Us" ? He makes a parallel argument to the one that you do - namely that there are people devoid of natural empathy who are very manipulative and charming and lack fear, thus being willing to take high risks. When stupid these people become low-life con-men, but when clever they have _exactly_ the qualities that would make for selective success in our system: cool-headed, risk-taking, ambitious and unscrupulous!
Great post. I am glad that I read the comments below the original "article", which told me nothing. I suppose that one reason that capitalized neologisms might have become popular is that they would be clearly distinguished from ordinary typographical errors when embedded in ordinary speech.
Isn't it the case that at least a significant proportion of researchers identify through the presence of oxidized ferrous minerals a pre-oxygen environment? One of the more popular scenarios is that micro-organisms that don't need oxygen flourished in anaerobic conditions and then the release of oxygen as a waste by-product stimulated the development of organisms that were shielded from it by membranes etc. and were able to utilize this "waste" in their metabolic cycles. Also I am confused about your statement that the Miller experiment relied on a "reducing atmosphere" yet "as far back as we look we find oxidized material". Could you set me straight about reduced vs. oxidized ?
Thanks.
This is NOT an experiment about evolution. It's just trying to mix and match from what is there already. Venter's team is just copying what they see out there which may have been create by God on Sunday 10:05 am 4000 B.C. or which has evolved starting with simple chemical reactions 3.5 billion years ago.
To correct the misuse of many posters:
bacterium - singular
bacteria - plural
"A bacteria" is like "a horses".
Thanks.
Could you cite a reference for the systematic removal of genes to create a 'minimalist bacterium' ? I am aware that there have been plenty of knock-out mutation studies done to isolate simple phenotype dependencies on genes, but I was not aware of systematic knock-outs on one species. Thanks.
thanks for posting those!!!
....what you say is only partially true. If the target of your very psycho-analytic piece is _only_ the "world-domination types" then it is probably true that these are people that are exhibiting a desire to be different or elite. I think though that these are a small portion of Linux users, a large number of the rest are neither hackers ( and b.t.w. you left Stallman out of your list of luminaries ) nor developers. They are users of the OS for tasks. They are using Linux because it _is_ better for their needs. Your analysis trivializes and ignores the fact that a Free tool _is_ a better tool because it can be adapted, and when there are so many people including skilled hackers using it the chances are that the adaptations that one wants are done at least partially implemented. The idea of a centrally-developed one-size-fits-all non-Free operating system sounds fine until you realize that the inherent limitations in that model are that commercial considerations lead in fact to one-size-fits-all-uncomfortably.
You take a pot-shot at HURD. Well, all I can say is that if it works better I'll be using it!
Interesting article. Thanks.
And yet another in Halifax!
Even if there were a "single purpose" virus the problem is there is not perfect copying of the "program" to its descendants, this generation of variation by mutation could lead to new "programs" that do things that were not originally intended. The worth of this project is going to be that it will be possible to change specific parts of the program and see what they actually do under a range of environmental conditions, plus it will allow specific strategies to be tested against strains that are _known_ to have particular properties initially.
whoops. Obviously I was reading too fast. Ignore my irrelevant post above. Sorry.
Furthermore he is talking about A virus. Even if the correct plural were "virii" then it would be like saying "a horses".
This is definitely the way that science _should_ go for two interlocked reasons:
1. the dissemination of information is retarded by the current system:
2. a central mechanism of science is unduly influenced by commercial considerations.
Its probable that the historical development of our publishing mechanisms ( private societies hiring publishers is essentially an outgrowth of the vanity-press and the inherently high material cost was born by gentlemen-scientists and their associations) coupled to the need for stability in the social evaluation of scientific merit has led to many non-rational, non-ideal features which need re-designing. Obviously the reduction of the material costs of publishing _should_ lead to lower journal prices and hence easier access to information. Do we really want to retard the development of science in universities/countries that are too poor to pay for information? The idea of originality and intelligence being wasted so that a company can make a buck is revolting.
It would be quite a problem to achieve this though. The most likely way for it to succeed would be with backing from established influential leaders in the field who were motivated by ideological considerations. Hope it happens!
Many of the posts on this topic have empathized with the Britich government and its security agencies for undertaking this surveillance. This is not the point. I think most of us understand why they would want to attempt to counteract terrorist threats. The issue is whether "by any means necessary" is acceptable in a functioning democracy. I feel that this has been one unrecognized aspect of the damage that the IRA has caused to citizens of both of the involved states: there have been a large number of draconian laws enacted which erode the liberties of citizens. The effect of this in the past has been that we have had censorship in both the UK and Rep. of Ireland, the adoption of the principle that silence under questioning can be taken as evidence of guilt, the corruption of police and security agencies desperate to solve a war by super-legal methods and the gradual and persistent erosion of public insistence on the sovereign rights of the citizen. I do not believe that we should place these tools in the hand of government. A previous poster relied on Congressional oversight to act as a check or balance on the use of these tools. That is asking the guardians to guard themselves and there is ample recent historical evidence that this does not work. So, we should reject this on two counts: firstly it is too dangerous to our democracies, secondly it does not work to prevent terrorist threats anyway.
"for him to infringe on my freedom to call it anything I want irks me."
Thanks to the liberal, open-minded scheme that GNU utilities are distributed under you can call it _anything_you_like. You are not being prevented from calling it_anything_you_like. RMS is merely stating his viewpoint that more credit should be given to the GNU project. You are insisting that HE capitulates to what YOU want to call the system that you run every day. To stridently attack someone for stating their viewpoint, as you do in this post, belies your claim to love freedom. Or perhaps its just YOUR freedom that you care about?
Do you agree that there is a move afoot to submerge the "political" ideals of the FSF underneath a welter of new acronyms that are more "friendly" to business? Do you agree that there is a chance that the structure of the programming community could develop in very different ways depending on which ideals have hegemony?
I was particularly irritated by your post because the very things that you accuse RMS of are embodied in your own post. Further, it follows on from a particularly trite and irritating article that expresses conservative shibboleths: the idea that ANY debate over language is "political correctness" and that this is in itself a bad thing; the idea that one can label those that see the world in a different way as "political" and that they are therefore "extreme". All these merely add up to saying "stop disagreeing with me, shut up and let me win". RMS is caricatured frequently and freely whenever his views are discussed. It doesn't matter if any of these characterizations are based in fact, all that matters is the logical correctness or otherwise of the arguments. I put it to you that to have contributed such a huge chunk of the distributions that we use and to receive no overt recognition of this is insulting and demeaning to RMS and all of the FSF programmers and writers.
Anyway brother, live wild and free in the programming Utopia created for you by other people, but whatever you do don't lose sight of the fact that there is a history to it and that
there will be a future which depends on what you
believe.
I agree that there is a lack of rigour in the definitions of "modularity" and hence a confusion in classifications that use this term. I don't understand your "innativity vs. adaptivity" though: I see adaptation as a process that results in, and acts on, innate structures. Perhaps you are using adaptive in some other sense? Is this a common one in cog.sci.? My perspective comes exclusively from molecular evolution.
Although I agree with you that there is a problem with the utopian "it'll all work itself out becuase OpenSource is better" attitude and that there needs to be organization I think you are reading a bit too much into the response. It is legitimate to be suspicious of anyone offering to lead. Help, now that's a different thing!
While this was a capably written, if somewhat prolix piece, I found it hard to agree with some of the assumptions of the author. Foremost among these is the idea that "open-source" must grow to become a broader consumer phenomenon.
/.ers posts. Although I realize that it would be nice for those of us who work in non-Linux shops to be able to point to something that suits could understand I don't believe that is , or should be the primary urge at the base of the movement. And if what is meant by "world domination" is that Linux is the only or primary OS in use then I think that is an even less legitimate goal. The purpose of "Free" software should be just that, freedom to choose. If someone wants WinXX instead or MacYY then they should be able to use that. My desire is to be able to continue to hack on GPL'ed code. It is nice that so many other people are using it, but I don't insist that they do.
>Open code software faces some formidable
>challenges if it is to grow and become a broader
>consumer phenomenon
This proposition is at the base of the whole essay, and is often mentioned in
More importantly than this admittedly selfish viewpoint is the problem of what might have to happen to "Free Software" in order to be able to "succeed" in the "free market." Already this essay wishes to develop a "brand name" for OS projects because they think that "consumers" can only identify with brand names. I agree. However, I believe that instead of dumbing down free-software to create more passive consumers of technology we should be using this as an educative opportunity. People should be learning. They should be contributing. They should be enjoying.
The alternative is being herded like dumb sheep by newspeak Harvard intellectuals. In one breath they sing the liberatory praises of "Open Code" (TM yet?) and on the other they start organizing their presidency of the already-quite-nicely-functioning-without-you community.
I humbly submit that if they really want to help then they should start writing out some large endowment checks to the FSF to help with the inevitable law-suits that are going to happen.
I also disagree with several substantive points in this piece:
1.Among the barriers it faces are the lack of popularly accessible documentation and technical support;
If the HOW-TOs are not popularly accessible then I don't know what is. Failing that one could buy some of the dreaded O'Reilly books which are quite excellent on many subjects.
2. the lack of a clear, well-known brand identity and marketing support;
Linux(TM) anyone?
3.a susceptibility to code-forking that can vitiate the development process;
Contrary to their definition of code-forking (they equate it with proprietary sequestration) it is a natural and sometimes useful result of open development. If a sufficient number of people think that the development of the project is mis-directed they can head off on their own. The best resulting code will win - this is the Bazaar!!!!
I agree that there should be consideration given to where we are going, what our goals are, how to acheive them etc. I take the point that many movements have failed in the past and many communities have been squashed because they were less organized and self-aware than outside forces, I agree that there needs to be a certain amount of cohesiveness about central goals. I
I don't agree that we need Harvard Law School to do this for us. I don't agree that the goal of the Free Software movement should be creation of consumers.