Your notion of granting freedom to others as a dissolution of power is just plain wrong. It is a transfer of power
It's not really a simple transfer, it's a decentralization of that power. Previously only one person had control of the software, once it's distributed many people share that control. More people have the power to enforce the license as they are all beneficiaries, and no one has the "power" to take away someone else's right to use the software.
It's true, I'm not being a troll. He thinks that the man should naturally have decision-making power in a marriage relationship because the man is stronger. Not surprising that he'd be in favor of microsoft making your decisions for you too.
Also, Locke ultimately says all these rights belong to a Christian god (which is why he thinks it's wrong to commit suicide- you don't own that body meester).
uwmurray, I think it is you who ought to review Locke. Or at least read some Rousseau or Hobbes or something, for Christ's sake.
Finally, intellectual property is not a natural right, it is a utility-maximizing bargain engineered by the framers of the constitution designed to increase social welfare by granting temporary monopolies to artists. It just doesn't work.
freedom to take away freedom
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Your simple post is attractive for its conciseness, but you conflate the power to take away freedoms and the power to protect freedom. They are different.
The distinction is actually rather obvious. You have the freedom to do anything you like except take away freedoms. You are being too simplistic with your notion of "power"- It's not that all power is bad, but rather that power when used to take away important freedoms is bad.
The GPL takes away no more freedom than is necessary to preserve freedom, and in a world where no one is able to take away your freedom to use information (i.e., a world without copyright), the GPL becomes unenforcable, you're right- but also unnecessary. I can only guess that those shouting loudest about how the GPL takes away freedoms must be paid by microsoft, because the only freedom it takes away is your right to keep someone else from having the same freedoms you have, and the only beneficiaries of such a system would be those who want to take the work of the community and make it exclusively their own.
Your "right to defend my home" example presumes you have an exclusive right to the object you are protecting. Intellectual property doesn't work this way though- the government grants you a temporary monopoly, it is not yours by right but rather because the framers of the constitution thought it would be a good bargain that would maximize social benefit. Unfortunately, they were wrong.
Your "censorship" example raises a good point. Everyone has the right to say that certain things ought not be said, but no one has the right to *keep people from saying those things*. Where is the freedom to censor? It is incompatible with free speech, and free speech is a fundamental right, so it trumps the "freedom to censor". Similarly, the freedom to take away other people's right to use software is incompatible with the freedom to use and modify software for any purpose.
Thank god we have you here representing the hypocrisy police. I mean, I'm certain you've done so much more than CmdrTaco to raise awareness of the dickheaded things the MPAA and RIAA are doing.
You don't have to be a monk to oppose the RIAA/MPAA. In fact, when they occasionally get things right (investing in fantasy movies with *gasp* plots), maybe it makes sense to invest in them.
Right, because he likes innovation- in fact he recently claimed to have been personally responsible for the rise of open source because of the way dos/windows commoditized hardware. Innovation warms his heart, just like heartburn.
Most DVD players have a parental lock feature which can result in by-passing scenes in the movie, e.g. the pie scene in American Pie.
That's like taking the gigolo out of American Gigolo, the Werewolf out of American Werewolf in London, the beauty out of American Beauty, and the Grafitti out of American Grafitti.
Come to think of it, I don't recall any actual grafitti in American Grafitti, but the movie was already 20ish years old by the time I saw it- damn, they must have censored it out already!
This is absolutely genius. It's clever, informative little comments like this that make reading slashdot worthwhile.
Re:It means the US has taken over the world
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 2
Who the fuck are you to say what constitutes an "official" government of a foreign people. What their people accept as a government, unstable as it may be, is their government. Remember all that "For the people, by the people" stuff? It's right for us, but not for them?
You make a very interesting and pertinent point. Ask yourself - what is the official title of the man named Musharraf, leader of Pakistan? Is it general or president? Up until September 11th, it's very difficult to find any mention of "President" Musharraf. Bush certainly didn't call him that- he didn't even know his name. Why did everyone call him general? Because he dislodged the democratically elected government in a military coup.
But he's a useful ally so we call him "President" now, even though Pakistani public opinion does not warrant it.
The last 3 prime ministers in the UK have been a middle class lad turned new Labour (Tony Blair), the son of a bloke who worked in a circus and who was an accountant and very working class who led the conservative party (John Major) and the daughter of a grocer who got a degree in Chemistry and led the Conservative party in 3 successive election victories. Working class, middle class, upper class, man or woman and no-one cares about religon... all have led the UK. Do you have such equality.
George W. Bush was a criminal (DUI), doesn't that count for anything? You hoity-toity brits...
You know, one of the more interesting parts of Mulsim morality is that it is considered wrong to charge interest. Even you agree that a 7 year limit on contracts is reasonable, so contracts obviously have limitations.
Furthermore, it is very common that successful artists will renegotiate the terms of their contracts. Prince ("The Artist") lived up to the obligations of his contract, but did not have to like it, and certainly didn't have to say he liked it.
You presume that the best way to make drugs available is through corporate r&d. Problem is, corporate patents raise the bar for any other researchers who would like to explore these avenues of research. So even though there is some incentive-creating mechanism in the patent-monopoly system, it is not nearly so strong as a system that would arise in its place where corporate r&d has a lower cost of entry due to no patent infringement fears and a resurgence of academic research in these areas where corporations do not own the ideas.
Take, for instance, Salk's development of the Polio vaccine at the University of Pittsburgh. He was asked why he didn't patent it, and replied "That would be like patenting the sun".
that's the point- objectivity does mean that you have to consider all the views, but it doesn't mean you have to land exactly in the middle of all the expressed views. It explicitly involves a value judgement in the sense that it compares competing subjective view points against an objective measurement.
Example: Jane says eating bugs is good for healthy teeth and bones. Jack says that's crazy. Although one would do well to consider Jane's argument, objectivity demands that we consider the premises behind each argument. Suppose modern science tells us unequivocally that only calcium builds strong teeth and bones, and that bugs are a poor source of calcium. Jack's right by objective measurement, unless we're challenging the very foundations of modern science- not typical journalistic fare (but it is news for nerds, I suppose). Anyway, there's no real need here to pay Jane's opinion undue heed just because she has it- in fact, objectivity demands in this case that we agree with jack. The facts in this case seem to point to Jack's conclusion that Jane is certifiable.
The truth does not necessarily lie at the midpoint of (or even between!) the extremes. The truth lies with the side (or shade of gray) which is most reasonable. Slashdot is reporting objectively about events in the world. Hilary Rosen is a paid lobbyist.
Objectivity can not simply mean pretending not to have opinions- it must mean investigating the premises behind the competing opinions and comparing their merits and motivations.
Heh...and all those Tomb Raider addicts would get to see what it really takes to jump twice your body height while carrying a shotgun, two Uzis, a priceless and magic gold artifact, and two cantaloupes in your shirt. Does the word "oof" come to mind?:)
Good one - very funny. I mean, where would she put canteloupes with those enormous breasts?
The gnutella network is a fine place to find an mpg version of this trailer, and as more people share it the mirrors will be more and more widespread. Peer to peer networks shine best in when they solve bandwidth problems by distributing the cost of mirroring popular data over the internet.
I recommend gnut, a text-based GPL'd gnutella client you can use over telnet or whatever, and you can even open a shell over top of it so you can continue interacting with the file system. it's the coolest.
It may be a good idea to search for "monsters" since the correct trailer (the one I found) was marked that way. Otherwise you might end up with the very well done forgery that has been circulating the net for a while.
"It's bad enough that you have trees in your forest, but moss is just too much"
Gawd. I mean, screw the logos. Let's get rid of corporate branding in general. It is the reality which shapes young minds today- self image is far too closely tied to what your favorite tv shows are and how high on the nike sneaker price scale you rank. I think if we woke up one day and the tvs were all gone we'd experience a cultural renaissance that we can scarcely imagine today.
I think that flexiiblity is what makes people want a handheld in the first place. Does anyone remember those old stereos with a walkman that popped out of them? My ideal handheld would be basically a 4-way folding palm V (thinner really).
Basically, it would have two screens, only one of which was visible before unfolding. When opened, it would have two screens aligned side by side, and a small keyboard which unfolds beneath them.
This way you can use it as a pda all day, but if you want to do some gaming/typing, you can sit down and unfold it and have a double-sized screen (think two palm IIIc's next to each other).
The trickiest parts are probably 1 designing the screens so that they can appear to be right next to each other, but still fold separately so you can go single-screen mode when you're in pda mode and 2. fitting a keyboard and two screens into something you can fit in your pocket. But I have faith that it can be done, and I'd happily allow my pocket to bulge twice the width of a palm III for the privelege.
Slashdot Mirror
Your notion of granting freedom to others as a dissolution of power is just plain wrong. It is a transfer of power
It's not really a simple transfer, it's a decentralization of that power. Previously only one person had control of the software, once it's distributed many people share that control. More people have the power to enforce the license as they are all beneficiaries, and no one has the "power" to take away someone else's right to use the software.
It's true, I'm not being a troll. He thinks that the man should naturally have decision-making power in a marriage relationship because the man is stronger. Not surprising that he'd be in favor of microsoft making your decisions for you too.
Also, Locke ultimately says all these rights belong to a Christian god (which is why he thinks it's wrong to commit suicide- you don't own that body meester).
uwmurray, I think it is you who ought to review Locke. Or at least read some Rousseau or Hobbes or something, for Christ's sake.
Finally, intellectual property is not a natural right, it is a utility-maximizing bargain engineered by the framers of the constitution designed to increase social welfare by granting temporary monopolies to artists. It just doesn't work.
Your simple post is attractive for its conciseness, but you conflate the power to take away freedoms and the power to protect freedom. They are different.
The distinction is actually rather obvious. You have the freedom to do anything you like except take away freedoms. You are being too simplistic with your notion of "power"- It's not that all power is bad, but rather that power when used to take away important freedoms is bad.
The GPL takes away no more freedom than is necessary to preserve freedom, and in a world where no one is able to take away your freedom to use information (i.e., a world without copyright), the GPL becomes unenforcable, you're right- but also unnecessary. I can only guess that those shouting loudest about how the GPL takes away freedoms must be paid by microsoft, because the only freedom it takes away is your right to keep someone else from having the same freedoms you have, and the only beneficiaries of such a system would be those who want to take the work of the community and make it exclusively their own.
Your "right to defend my home" example presumes you have an exclusive right to the object you are protecting. Intellectual property doesn't work this way though- the government grants you a temporary monopoly, it is not yours by right but rather because the framers of the constitution thought it would be a good bargain that would maximize social benefit. Unfortunately, they were wrong.
Your "censorship" example raises a good point. Everyone has the right to say that certain things ought not be said, but no one has the right to *keep people from saying those things*. Where is the freedom to censor? It is incompatible with free speech, and free speech is a fundamental right, so it trumps the "freedom to censor". Similarly, the freedom to take away other people's right to use software is incompatible with the freedom to use and modify software for any purpose.
No wishing for more wishes. -the djinni
Do we need a socializing HOWTO?
There already is one.
:)
I designed a quake map like that once- the rocket launcher was right by the BBQ so it was a very popular spot. No salad, though...
Thank god we have you here representing the hypocrisy police. I mean, I'm certain you've done so much more than CmdrTaco to raise awareness of the dickheaded things the MPAA and RIAA are doing.
You don't have to be a monk to oppose the RIAA/MPAA. In fact, when they occasionally get things right (investing in fantasy movies with *gasp* plots), maybe it makes sense to invest in them.
Just don't drop your SOAP on port 80 if you know what's good for you...
Bill would enjoy knowing it ran Linux.
Right, because he likes innovation- in fact he recently claimed to have been personally responsible for the rise of open source because of the way dos/windows commoditized hardware. Innovation warms his heart, just like heartburn.
When linux has been successfully ported to these machines, I will buy one.
Most DVD players have a parental lock feature which can result in by-passing scenes in the movie, e.g. the pie scene in American Pie.
That's like taking the gigolo out of American Gigolo, the Werewolf out of American Werewolf in London, the beauty out of American Beauty, and the Grafitti out of American Grafitti.
Come to think of it, I don't recall any actual grafitti in American Grafitti, but the movie was already 20ish years old by the time I saw it- damn, they must have censored it out already!
They'll refer to it as "penny a pop-up".
I have a feeling they'll be for it...
This is absolutely genius. It's clever, informative little comments like this that make reading slashdot worthwhile.
Who the fuck are you to say what constitutes an "official" government of a foreign people. What their people accept as a government, unstable as it may be, is their government. Remember all that "For the people, by the people" stuff? It's right for us, but not for them?
You make a very interesting and pertinent point. Ask yourself - what is the official title of the man named Musharraf, leader of Pakistan? Is it general or president? Up until September 11th, it's very difficult to find any mention of "President" Musharraf. Bush certainly didn't call him that- he didn't even know his name. Why did everyone call him general? Because he dislodged the democratically elected government in a military coup.
But he's a useful ally so we call him "President" now, even though Pakistani public opinion does not warrant it.
The last 3 prime ministers in the UK have been a middle class lad turned new Labour (Tony Blair), the son of a bloke who worked in a circus and who was an accountant and very working class who led the conservative party (John Major) and the daughter of a grocer who got a degree in Chemistry and led the Conservative party in 3 successive election victories. Working class, middle class, upper class, man or woman and no-one cares about religon... all have led the UK. Do you have such equality.
George W. Bush was a criminal (DUI), doesn't that count for anything? You hoity-toity brits...
You know, one of the more interesting parts of Mulsim morality is that it is considered wrong to charge interest. Even you agree that a 7 year limit on contracts is reasonable, so contracts obviously have limitations.
Furthermore, it is very common that successful artists will renegotiate the terms of their contracts. Prince ("The Artist") lived up to the obligations of his contract, but did not have to like it, and certainly didn't have to say he liked it.
Bryguy
This is the most brilliant slashdot comment I've seen all year. If I had any modpoints right now I would surely spend them to mod this up.
Bryguy
You presume that the best way to make drugs available is through corporate r&d. Problem is, corporate patents raise the bar for any other researchers who would like to explore these avenues of research. So even though there is some incentive-creating mechanism in the patent-monopoly system, it is not nearly so strong as a system that would arise in its place where corporate r&d has a lower cost of entry due to no patent infringement fears and a resurgence of academic research in these areas where corporations do not own the ideas.
Take, for instance, Salk's development of the Polio vaccine at the University of Pittsburgh. He was asked why he didn't patent it, and replied "That would be like patenting the sun".
Bryguy
that's the point- objectivity does mean that you have to consider all the views, but it doesn't mean you have to land exactly in the middle of all the expressed views. It explicitly involves a value judgement in the sense that it compares competing subjective view points against an objective measurement.
Example: Jane says eating bugs is good for healthy teeth and bones. Jack says that's crazy. Although one would do well to consider Jane's argument, objectivity demands that we consider the premises behind each argument. Suppose modern science tells us unequivocally that only calcium builds strong teeth and bones, and that bugs are a poor source of calcium. Jack's right by objective measurement, unless we're challenging the very foundations of modern science- not typical journalistic fare (but it is news for nerds, I suppose). Anyway, there's no real need here to pay Jane's opinion undue heed just because she has it- in fact, objectivity demands in this case that we agree with jack. The facts in this case seem to point to Jack's conclusion that Jane is certifiable.
The truth does not necessarily lie at the midpoint of (or even between!) the extremes. The truth lies with the side (or shade of gray) which is most reasonable. Slashdot is reporting objectively about events in the world. Hilary Rosen is a paid lobbyist.
Objectivity can not simply mean pretending not to have opinions- it must mean investigating the premises behind the competing opinions and comparing their merits and motivations.
Heh...and all those Tomb Raider addicts would get to see what it really takes to jump twice your body height while carrying a shotgun, two Uzis, a priceless and magic gold artifact, and two cantaloupes in your shirt. Does the word "oof" come to mind? :)
Good one - very funny. I mean, where would she put canteloupes with those enormous breasts?
:)
The gnutella network is a fine place to find an mpg version of this trailer, and as more people share it the mirrors will be more and more widespread. Peer to peer networks shine best in when they solve bandwidth problems by distributing the cost of mirroring popular data over the internet.
I recommend gnut, a text-based GPL'd gnutella client you can use over telnet or whatever, and you can even open a shell over top of it so you can continue interacting with the file system. it's the coolest.
It may be a good idea to search for "monsters" since the correct trailer (the one I found) was marked that way. Otherwise you might end up with the very well done forgery that has been circulating the net for a while.
Bryguy
"It's bad enough that you have trees in your forest, but moss is just too much"
Gawd. I mean, screw the logos. Let's get rid of corporate branding in general. It is the reality which shapes young minds today- self image is far too closely tied to what your favorite tv shows are and how high on the nike sneaker price scale you rank. I think if we woke up one day and the tvs were all gone we'd experience a cultural renaissance that we can scarcely imagine today.
harrumph.
I think that flexiiblity is what makes people want a handheld in the first place. Does anyone remember those old stereos with a walkman that popped out of them? My ideal handheld would be basically a 4-way folding palm V (thinner really).
Basically, it would have two screens, only one of which was visible before unfolding. When opened, it would have two screens aligned side by side, and a small keyboard which unfolds beneath them.
This way you can use it as a pda all day, but if you want to do some gaming/typing, you can sit down and unfold it and have a double-sized screen (think two palm IIIc's next to each other).
The trickiest parts are probably 1 designing the screens so that they can appear to be right next to each other, but still fold separately so you can go single-screen mode when you're in pda mode and 2. fitting a keyboard and two screens into something you can fit in your pocket. But I have faith that it can be done, and I'd happily allow my pocket to bulge twice the width of a palm III for the privelege.
Any chance of some substantiation of your claims?
Dot instead of SlashDot?
no, it will be backslashDot (c)
The bill gates borg icon will get a stylish makeover and a heroic background to boot.
free passport account with your backslashdot registration!