There is no such thing as 'free speech' without 'free beer'. If you have to pay to say what you want, you don't have free speech. If you have to pay to get GNU/Linux, not eveyone can afford it and it's not free (as in libre). I know we live in a capitalist world and we need money to survive. Which is why I plan on donating to Debian and others as soon as I can afford it and contributing code/doc as soon as I have the ability (I'm learning now). But I'll never buy free software. Encourage the community, don't fall into the provider-consumer way of thinking.
Re:Anyone know the french version?
on
New Linux Worm
·
· Score: 1
Woa! Some answers... I didn't mean to allow a 5 year to watch hardcore or goat.cx... I only said that blocking some content and allowing others is NOT a way to raise a child the parent of my post suggested... It can in no way replace the role parents must play in their education. The world would be a much nicer place if people stopped relying on TV and the net to raise their kids. But my main point was that prevention and teaching children what is appropriate from them is much more effective than a filter.
The appropriate censorship, at the appropriate time, and in the appropriate manner, is how we raise our kids; and that's been true since long before the net was ever around.
Sure! To raise your kids, hide the part of reality you don't think is appropriate for them and it will magically go away. They will grow in a world where no bad things exist and everything will be for the better. Don't you think about educating them about the facts of life and how everything isn't always the way it should be and that they have to learn to deal with those things. It's useless. Kids are too stupid to understand.
After that, people wonder why teens are lost and try to escape reality...
In the traditional medias (TV, radio, newspaper...), information flows in only one way, from a centralized point to the masses. It is more filtered than anywhere else. Everyone gets the viewpoint of a few and have to debate using only this information. Which means that even if people make their own opinion, it's still based on a narrow view. This isn't democracy.
On the net, everyone has the possibility to have an equal say. But, being used to the traditional system, many people still go get their news from CNN.com and don't comment much. Others are too excited about being heard that they don't stop to think about what they say. It's still too new to everyone. But life has an incredible capacity to adapt itself. Things will change, and are changing. And everyone sharing ideas, debating opinions are reaching compromises is what democracy is all about. This can only be achieved on a local scale through physical meetings. And it can't be achieved through traditional medias. The net can make this possible, but the net is only a tool. Everything will depend on how it is used. Tools to not make revolutions. Humans use tools to make revolutions possible.
To summarise, the net is not a revolution: it is merely an instrument of the revolution.
Will the computer revolution bring about the victory of one class over another?
Right now, the financial elite is winning over the people. Most of you don't want to see it, but your beloved capitalism is leading us to totalitarism and the plain destruction of our Mother Earth. The net is an awesome tool for the people to inform and organize themselves to counter this. Do not expect it to do it by itself.
And the technology doesn't discriminate and make itself unavailable to the masses and make them poorer and poorer. The elitism of the distribution system makes it that way. The internet could be available to everyone without any problem. And internet doesn't deceive my expectations at all. It only deceives those who wanted it to make them rich.
A revolution only leads to the same starting point if the people then put someone else in power. A true revolution gives the power to the people. Participative democracy is not only possible: it's the way to go if we want to reclaim our earth, society, freedom and happiness.
While I mostly agree with you and the post you are replying to is bullshit, we must be careful in categorizing and separating things too much.
Biology, geology and cosmology are all studying different aspects of the universe we live in. There wouldn't be any biological evolution if it weren't of the planet's evolution that came before and the formation of the galaxies that came first. It is all part of the same evolution in a way.
I think that if geologist, biologist and all would collaborate more, we'd understand a great deal of why that is. Overspecialisation is a bad thing.
It's government interference (a la FDA) that keep research companies (the few wealthy enough to jump through all the necessary regulatory hoops) slow if not paralysed.
That's a big joke. The market only waits for the gov to fall to emerge in all it's purity and suddenly act of the good of all? You need huge amounts of capital to do anything significant in terms of R&D and industrial production. The only way to achieve this by the inheritance of the exploitation of the last generations. And those who can, will make damn sure that it stays that way and that they get an even bigger slice of the cage. The only other alternative is to bypass money and gov and collaborate together. Until you realise that, you'll remain a slave and ensure that posterity will have worst and worst conditions. And at this rate it's time to ask ourselves if there will be anything left for them to survive anyway. Ah, I forgot again, it doesn't matter a tiny bit.
I am NOT a native English speaker.
The VC doesn't have an incentive to invest in a safe and useful product, only to invest in something that is marketable fast and profitable. I.E. that isn't proved to be harmful and believed to be good in the short run. The long run isn't even known to exist to capitalism. I don't want to leave my health to people like that. You think GMOs are safe? I think they could have phenomenal possibilities. But messing with DNA before even understanding how it works is suicide. And it's starting to show off: genetic pollution, weakening effect on the immune system, ect.
And that's common good in the eyes of the gov. Which is why I am anarchist. Why are there only two alternatives to most people? Why couldn't the good of the individual and the "common good" be compatible?
Bah. We live in a capitalist market. Applications that promises big $$$ will develop quickly (GMO food that costs less to produce and grow faster, Viagra-like drugs, ect.) Saving lives is unimportant (to the market, not my opinion.)
Rationalisation is the key to all problems, and we have the best system possible, don't you know that?
"There is no such thing as a society."
With the bandwidth and hard drive space rising, I feel that by the time Ogg is finished, it will be obsolete. Wouldn't concentrating on a lossless compression format such as FLAC be more worthwhile?
Them being Jews has nothing to do with it. Of any color or nation, capitalists exploit people. It is the capitalist nature to grow bigger and bigger and to crush the smaller.
And why are whites white and blacks "colored people"? Because white isn't a color? Neither is black! Never got that one.
Stop racism. And "positive" discrimination is as bad.
I'm tired of all those "you have the choice" posts... I want to choose what kind of art I want and how I want to watch, listen, ect, it. Not choosing between doing things their way or not at all.
Languages are a very important part of our culture (humanity's culture), a way to understand the social evolution, gives us a feeling of unity, ect. Now there are only a few thousands left and many more disappearing each year. It's as sad as species disappearing and unique geographical locations being destroyed...
We are losing what makes life so unique and rich: diversity.
Now although I prefer my native language, I love english and I think it's a good thing that it's universal, helps people communicate no mater their native language; I just wouldn't want it to become the only one or the major one out of a few. Which is why we have to protect ourselves from the assimilation english-canadiens and americans have been trying to force on us. Yes, this results in stupid laws.
And with globalization, I think this tendency is nothing like what we've faced in the past. Abandonning religions, borders and such is great. 'Standardizing' languages is not. Computer languages, maybe, not humans ones.
Chacun exige d'être innocent, à tout prix, même si, pour cela, il faut accuser le genre humain et le ciel. Albert Camus
You need capital to start your own business, that's capitalism. The thing is, people who have to chose between work and starving don't have this choice.
The only thing capitalism do is enable those who already have the capital and power keep it and gather some more.
Try to think instead of believing what you are told.
"Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full administrator, which compromises best security practices."
A way to delegate some privileges to users needs to be inplemented.
Then see which of the two categories contains most of the world's "desolate, sterilized wastelands".
Uhm. I asume you mean corporate web sites have more content, cleaner designs, ect. It might be true, to some extent, but did you stop and ask yourself why?
Maybe they have the resources (read money) to hire people to build those.
While the "free" and uncolonised may have good ideas, they have to work to "earn their lives" (anyone else than me sees something wrong with the way that sounds?) and do that in their free time.
My point is that we're all stuck in a capitalistic system and some are advantaged and others held back by it. But you can't judge people's capabilities based on their production in such unequal system.
Anyone ever ate money for breakfast? Not so nutricious...
To keep people from starving, we need food. The thing is, we produce 1.5 times enough food to feed the earth's population. The problem is in the distribution of it. Half of americans are overweight, all of the grocerie stores and warehouses waste millions of tons of food every day insteed of sending it to the needing. There is the problem. Not spending money on such interesting projects wont change a thing. People will keep starving as long capitalism rules the earth.
And if they can't get back on track by themselves, it's more because for each dollar givin by international aid, 2 or 3 must be givin back to rich countrys just to pay the interests of their debt. Debts which are mostly dued to their gouvernements buying wepons to our's.
This debt was supossed to be erased a few years ago (or that is what the democrats of G8 promessed), but that never happended.
So insteed of flaming on/. flame your political representents, flame the G8, flame the army, flame major grocerie stores...
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such thing as 'free speech' without 'free beer'. If you have to pay to say what you want, you don't have free speech. If you have to pay to get GNU/Linux, not eveyone can afford it and it's not free (as in libre). I know we live in a capitalist world and we need money to survive. Which is why I plan on donating to Debian and others as soon as I can afford it and contributing code/doc as soon as I have the ability (I'm learning now). But I'll never buy free software. Encourage the community, don't fall into the provider-consumer way of thinking.
On dit LA jungle ;-)
Woa! Some answers... I didn't mean to allow a 5 year to watch hardcore or goat.cx... I only said that blocking some content and allowing others is NOT a way to raise a child the parent of my post suggested... It can in no way replace the role parents must play in their education. The world would be a much nicer place if people stopped relying on TV and the net to raise their kids. But my main point was that prevention and teaching children what is appropriate from them is much more effective than a filter.
Sure! To raise your kids, hide the part of reality you don't think is appropriate for them and it will magically go away. They will grow in a world where no bad things exist and everything will be for the better. Don't you think about educating them about the facts of life and how everything isn't always the way it should be and that they have to learn to deal with those things. It's useless. Kids are too stupid to understand.
After that, people wonder why teens are lost and try to escape reality...
On the net, everyone has the possibility to have an equal say. But, being used to the traditional system, many people still go get their news from CNN.com and don't comment much. Others are too excited about being heard that they don't stop to think about what they say. It's still too new to everyone. But life has an incredible capacity to adapt itself. Things will change, and are changing. And everyone sharing ideas, debating opinions are reaching compromises is what democracy is all about. This can only be achieved on a local scale through physical meetings. And it can't be achieved through traditional medias. The net can make this possible, but the net is only a tool. Everything will depend on how it is used. Tools to not make revolutions. Humans use tools to make revolutions possible.
To summarise, the net is not a revolution: it is merely an instrument of the revolution.
Will the computer revolution bring about the victory of one class over another?
Right now, the financial elite is winning over the people. Most of you don't want to see it, but your beloved capitalism is leading us to totalitarism and the plain destruction of our Mother Earth. The net is an awesome tool for the people to inform and organize themselves to counter this. Do not expect it to do it by itself. And the technology doesn't discriminate and make itself unavailable to the masses and make them poorer and poorer. The elitism of the distribution system makes it that way. The internet could be available to everyone without any problem. And internet doesn't deceive my expectations at all. It only deceives those who wanted it to make them rich.
A revolution only leads to the same starting point if the people then put someone else in power. A true revolution gives the power to the people. Participative democracy is not only possible: it's the way to go if we want to reclaim our earth, society, freedom and happiness.
Related Links : An Anarchist FAQ - Independent Media Center - Mobilisation for Global Justice - World Social Forum - Industrial Workers of the World
A quarter of buck, of course. What else do americans think about?
While I mostly agree with you and the post you are replying to is bullshit, we must be careful in categorizing and separating things too much.
Biology, geology and cosmology are all studying different aspects of the universe we live in. There wouldn't be any biological evolution if it weren't of the planet's evolution that came before and the formation of the galaxies that came first. It is all part of the same evolution in a way.
I think that if geologist, biologist and all would collaborate more, we'd understand a great deal of why that is. Overspecialisation is a bad thing.
It's government interference (a la FDA) that keep research companies (the few wealthy enough to jump through all the necessary regulatory hoops) slow if not paralysed. That's a big joke. The market only waits for the gov to fall to emerge in all it's purity and suddenly act of the good of all? You need huge amounts of capital to do anything significant in terms of R&D and industrial production. The only way to achieve this by the inheritance of the exploitation of the last generations. And those who can, will make damn sure that it stays that way and that they get an even bigger slice of the cage. The only other alternative is to bypass money and gov and collaborate together. Until you realise that, you'll remain a slave and ensure that posterity will have worst and worst conditions. And at this rate it's time to ask ourselves if there will be anything left for them to survive anyway. Ah, I forgot again, it doesn't matter a tiny bit. I am NOT a native English speaker.
The VC doesn't have an incentive to invest in a safe and useful product, only to invest in something that is marketable fast and profitable. I.E. that isn't proved to be harmful and believed to be good in the short run. The long run isn't even known to exist to capitalism. I don't want to leave my health to people like that. You think GMOs are safe? I think they could have phenomenal possibilities. But messing with DNA before even understanding how it works is suicide. And it's starting to show off: genetic pollution, weakening effect on the immune system, ect.
And that's common good in the eyes of the gov. Which is why I am anarchist. Why are there only two alternatives to most people? Why couldn't the good of the individual and the "common good" be compatible?
www.anarchistfaq.org
Bah. We live in a capitalist market. Applications that promises big $$$ will develop quickly (GMO food that costs less to produce and grow faster, Viagra-like drugs, ect.) Saving lives is unimportant (to the market, not my opinion.) Rationalisation is the key to all problems, and we have the best system possible, don't you know that? "There is no such thing as a society."
I don't want near-CD quality: I want CD quality!
Them being Jews has nothing to do with it. Of any color or nation, capitalists exploit people. It is the capitalist nature to grow bigger and bigger and to crush the smaller.
And why are whites white and blacks "colored people"? Because white isn't a color? Neither is black! Never got that one.
Stop racism. And "positive" discrimination is as bad.
Many people rent cable modems or satelite dishes for broadband internet which often is expensive. It's not your regular 56k modem.
I'm tired of all those "you have the choice" posts... I want to choose what kind of art I want and how I want to watch, listen, ect, it. Not choosing between doing things their way or not at all.
Languages are a very important part of our culture (humanity's culture), a way to understand the social evolution, gives us a feeling of unity, ect. Now there are only a few thousands left and many more disappearing each year. It's as sad as species disappearing and unique geographical locations being destroyed... We are losing what makes life so unique and rich: diversity. Now although I prefer my native language, I love english and I think it's a good thing that it's universal, helps people communicate no mater their native language; I just wouldn't want it to become the only one or the major one out of a few. Which is why we have to protect ourselves from the assimilation english-canadiens and americans have been trying to force on us. Yes, this results in stupid laws. And with globalization, I think this tendency is nothing like what we've faced in the past. Abandonning religions, borders and such is great. 'Standardizing' languages is not. Computer languages, maybe, not humans ones. Chacun exige d'être innocent, à tout prix, même si, pour cela, il faut accuser le genre humain et le ciel. Albert Camus
You need capital to start your own business, that's capitalism. The thing is, people who have to chose between work and starving don't have this choice.
The only thing capitalism do is enable those who already have the capital and power keep it and gather some more.
Try to think instead of believing what you are told.
Well I asked "Is this thing for real?" and it said Outlook not so good so...
"Linux security is all-or-nothing. Administrators cannot delegate administrative privileges: a user who needs any administrative capability must be made a full administrator, which compromises best security practices." A way to delegate some privileges to users needs to be inplemented.
Not everyone is a native english speaker (luckyly). I'm doing my best, I'd like to see you do better in other languages.
Uhm. I asume you mean corporate web sites have more content, cleaner designs, ect. It might be true, to some extent, but did you stop and ask yourself why?
Maybe they have the resources (read money) to hire people to build those.
While the "free" and uncolonised may have good ideas, they have to work to "earn their lives" (anyone else than me sees something wrong with the way that sounds?) and do that in their free time.
My point is that we're all stuck in a capitalistic system and some are advantaged and others held back by it. But you can't judge people's capabilities based on their production in such unequal system.
Anarchy is the answer.
Must read
An Anarchy FAQ
In fact, poorer nations are mired in poverty BECAUSE of Amercian-style cpitalits.
Bonuses on magical wepons can't be more than +5, dumbass.
Three numbers: 404
-Canadians are people too!
What the fuck is that suposed to mean?
Anyone ever ate money for breakfast? Not so nutricious... To keep people from starving, we need food. The thing is, we produce 1.5 times enough food to feed the earth's population. The problem is in the distribution of it. Half of americans are overweight, all of the grocerie stores and warehouses waste millions of tons of food every day insteed of sending it to the needing. There is the problem. Not spending money on such interesting projects wont change a thing. People will keep starving as long capitalism rules the earth. And if they can't get back on track by themselves, it's more because for each dollar givin by international aid, 2 or 3 must be givin back to rich countrys just to pay the interests of their debt. Debts which are mostly dued to their gouvernements buying wepons to our's. This debt was supossed to be erased a few years ago (or that is what the democrats of G8 promessed), but that never happended. So insteed of flaming on /. flame your political representents, flame the G8, flame the army, flame major grocerie stores...