BTW: It's nice to actually have a discussion on/. with somebody who can type in complete sentences =)
There's a few of us who can, but we're usually modded flamebait pretty quickly.;)
If you read her books in context of her and her personality, her whole philosophy is lashing out at a perceived "injustice"... she feels that her brilliance should be exalted by the world, and since it wasn't, she wrote horrible, horrible books about a magic world where she would have the power to do whatever she wants and rise to the top and spend her days in the company of other "greats."
I tend to separate Rand's personality from her philosophy. Rand had a *brilliant* mind, a simply amazing ability to think, and created a wonderful philosophical framework, but had trouble walking the talk -- as I wrote recently in a discussion with another friend of mine, "Rand couldn't practice all of what she preached. In her personal relationships, if you didn't worship her at all costs, you were an outcast. If you didn't agree with her logic, and reach her conclusions, you were an outcast... The people around her had to live for _her_, had to love _her_, many times at the expense of their own happiness and values, which is a stunning major violation of the philosophy" that you live for your own sake, and do *not* sacrifice yourself for the sakes of others. (Wow, if you've never tried it, quoting yourself is _weeeeird_.) Rand's life fails to imitate her art. In her work, characters took time to reach the conclusions they did. In life, people do the same, and no amount of external will can change that. Rand also failed to recognize and/or accept that which she called in her work "errors of mind." She identified them as breaches of morality.
I also find that a lot of the people who identify with her also feel that. Obviously, I don't know anything about you at all, so please don't think I am holding you to that characterization, but Rand's views play perfectly into the mindset of those who feel THEY should be on top, because those who are on top aren't as "good."
I'm self-admittedly tough to pigeonhole.:) I reached a lot of objectivism's conclusions long before I ever read Rand. I read The Fountainhead without really seeing much of her philosophy shining through. (Probably because, as my intro to Rand, I tended to skip over the multi-page diatribes. I've tried re-reading it. I still can't.) Atlas Shrugged made the last few pieces of my own personal puzzle "click" for me. I identify myself as being mostly objectivist, deist (and non-contradictorally so, but that's a long story) and perhaps a tinge of buddhism, (I did my homework -- you seem to have an interest in it, yourself.:) ) in that I don't particularly crave much -- not power, not material wealth, not sex, not success -- although I disagree with the buddhist tenet that all life is suffering (or some variation on the word), there's actually some parallels between objectivism and buddhism. (But then, I'll admit I've done very little study of Buddhism except for the little that's on wikipedia. I'm a quick study, however, and that's enough for me to know what I think is wrong with it. I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche either, and I've not read more than 10 words of his. *shrug*) I crave only my own happiness and freedom. I wish to live as much for my own sake and no one else's as I possibly can. I wish to make as few concessions to that as possible.
I will admit to having little patience for mediocrity and a hatred for any infringement of my rights. I will admit to shaking my head at the beliefs of most religions. I think that most people have no idea -- for better or for worse -- their true value. I'm fairly aware of mine, but I do have things here and there yet to sort out.
I know what she alleges her philosophy is, but in practice, when everyone starts acting selfishly, well; when the few super brilliant movers and shakers she c
That explains a lot. Your summation is totally, utterly and completely wrong!
Altruism, the notion that you must sacrifice yourself -- your time, your money, your mind, your best efforts -- to others at no gain to yourself, is absolutely vilified in Rand's philosophy. Non-selfishness IS altruism. Altruism IS self-destruction. Sadly, altruism is the mode and motive of nearly every way of life, government and religion on the face of the Earth. (With the possible exception of LeVey's Satanism, which should be rejected, too, for other reasons which I'll leave up to the reader to figure out.) Sacrifice to society or state for the Common Good. Sacrifice to your fellow man for reasons of faith. As such, no matter which way you go - Red State or Blue, Christian, Muslim or Jew, Commie or supposed Capitalist (there is no true Capitalism in the world, sadly), we submit ourselves willingly to our own eventual destruction.
A more accurate, although still-lacking, summation would be this:
Every man exists for his own sake, not for the sakes of others.
That summation is lacking because it fails to declare reality to be objective and non-contradictory; it fails to declare reason, logical non-contradictory identification of reality, as a man's only means of survival; it only touches on the declaration that a man's pursuit of his own happiness is his highest purpose; it is only by inference that one could conclude from it that voluntary trade -- of best effort for best effort, value for value -- for mutual benefit is the only acceptable basis of any relationship. But if I have to come up with the _best_ possible summation, that's it in a nutshell.
I agree with you almost totally. Where I don't, it's really not enough to really get into, it being 2:30 in the morning and all. *grin* So, suffice it to say, "Right On, Brother!"
And don't worry about me being modded flamebait, I'm used to it. *chuckle*
Really, like, all you Slashdot folks, go out and read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, like, now. Yes, I know I reference the book quite a lot. Yes, I know I'm annoying about it. Yes, I mean it. You really do need to read it. And when you do, think about modern-day achievements such as WoW, and those whose best efforts went into producing it. And whose less-capable "competitors" wish now to destroy that success by implication, smear, guilt, FUD or force.
WoW, by all accounts, is the next best thing to sliced bread. (I don't play it. I'm still pissed at Vivendi over the bnetd stuff, for basically playing the same underhanded games that I'm going to lament in the next few paragraphs.)
So, well, if it's threatening the products produced by the rest of the industry -- guess what?! IT'S DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO.
If the other game producers out there aren't competing well, don't penalize WoW. Don't blame it's success for the shortfalls of the rest of the industry -- go back to the drawing board and make a new, better fucking product. Grab that money, grab that market share by putting forth the product of your BEST EFFORT -- not by guilting, smearing, blaming, or -- God forbid -- legislating or regulating those who already do so.
Blizzard, if your product is as great as everyone says, more power to you. Accept no offer or tactic that those in your industry less able than you seem to be gearing up to use against you.
In the book, Ellis Wyatt, dismayed after taxes are imposed on a flourishing Colorado in order to benefit its less successful neighbors, sets fire to his own oil wells and disappears, leaving behind a sign saying "I'm leaving it as I found it. Take over. It's yours."
While I don't disagree completely with your first suggestion -- I firmly favor the second amendment, even if I am too accident prone to personally exercise it -- your implied second suggestion goes too far. I'd argue for a third, similar to the premise of the book: Strike. Quit. Whatever you want to call it. Realize that the government needs _your_ permission to take from you what it does, then deny them your cooperation. Take your mind and your ability to produce what the government so desperately requires -- ideas, wealth -- out of the equation. Shut down your businesses. Liquidate your assets. Cash out your investments -- don't worry about the one-time tax penalties, they won't last the government long. Live off your assets (paying cash, under-the-table as much as possible) for as long as you can, then apply for the benefits of the system that you're entitled to. Remove yourself from the economy and the tax base, sign on to do your own part to help drain it, then sit back, relax, and watch both crumble. Imagine how quickly the government would fold if the 50% that pay 90% of the taxes in this country up and quit tomorrow. A beautiful site, indeed.
I'm not going to bitch about gas prices. I'm not going to bitch about taxes. I'm not going to bitch about SUVs, Hybrids, or bicycles.
I'm going to, instead, smile to myself and tip my hat to Ellis Wyatt -- a fictional character in Rand's Atlas Shrugged, who figured out a method to extract crude from the same Colorado oil shale. And to the real-world Men of the Mind that have made it possible today.
Here we stand/ Like an Adam and an Eve/ Waterfalls/ The Garden of Eden/ Two fools in love/ So beautiful and strong/ The birds in the trees/ Are smiling upon them/ From the age of the dinosaurs/ Cars have run on gasoline/ Where, Where have they gone?/ Now, it's nothing but flowers/
There was a factory/ Now there are mountains and rivers/
We caught a rattlesnake/ Now we got something for dinner/
There was a shopping mall/ Now it's all covered with flowers/
If this is paradise/ I wish I had a lawnmower/
Years ago/ I was an angry young man/ I'd pretend/ That I was a billboard/ Standing tall/ By the side of the road/ I fell in love/ With a beautiful highway/ This used to be real estate/ Now it's only fields and trees/ Where, where is the town/ Now, it's nothing but flowers/ The highways and cars/ Were sacrificed for agriculture/ I thought that we'd start over/ But I guess I was wrong/
Once there were parking lots/ Now it's a peaceful oasis/
This was a Pizza Hut/ Now it's all covered with daisies/
I miss the honky tonks,/ Dairy Queens, and 7-Elevens/
And as things fell apart/ Nobody paid much attention/
I dream of cherry pies,/ Candy bars, and chocolate chip cookies/
We used to microwave/ Now we just eat nuts and berries/
This was a discount store,/ Now it's turned into a cornfield/
Don't leave me stranded here/ I can't get used to this lifestyle/
...that F. Scott Fitzgerald also wrote The Great Gatsby, one of the steamiest piles of literary crap, either.
He's wrong in this case, too. Contradictions don't exist. If you can hold in your mind two contradictory thoughs in your mind and still function, you're not really functioning -- you're cheating yourself. Sorry, F. Scott. Too bad about the book, too.
Yes, I realize I'm going to sound a little Randbotty here, but if you're facing a seeming contradiction, check your premises. At least one of them is surely false.
In the examples given in the original post, the authors premises are certainly wrong. In the case of people being both pro-life and pro-death penalty, the seeming contradiction arises from the catch-phrase labels given each. In reality, in both cases, life is valued -- in the case of the unborn, that life is is valuable enough to be allowed to happen. In capital punishment, that life is valuable enough to be revoked as punishment for particularly horrid crimes against the life/liberty/minds of others. In the example of open source, it is not that information wants to be free, it's that certain people want software to be free (free as in beer, not as in speech, contrary to what RMS seems to tout. But then, he's in serious need of premise-checking) -- these people despise the software moguls for much the same reasons that the movers and shakers of the industrial age were despised. It really has more to do with class envy than any poor, tired, huddled masses of information yearning to be free.
So which is it -- that Mr. Stallman wants owners to be able to protect the integrity of their creative work, or that authors relinquish ownership of their creative works?
You. can't. have. both.
Re:It's funny that the GPL itself isn't GPL.
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
You're missing the point, though. Again, in his own words:
"Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator."
Mr. Stallman apparently believes that an author or creator has the right to protect the integrity and intent of their own creative work.
Mr. Stallman apparently also believes that software are creative works. Otherwise, the view that GPL is a "copyright" based license fails.
But yet he does not believe that the author or creator of software should have the right to protect the integrity and intent of the software they created -- everyone instead must be able to study it, copy it, modify it, use it -- and very likely in a number of ways the work's creator would not have envisioned, never intended, and has no way to prevent. To release software under the GPL is to, for all practical purposes, give up your right to preserve the integrity of your work.
Mr. Stallman holds, simultaneously, two contradictory views about the value of ones own creative works.
Re:It's funny that the GPL itself isn't GPL.
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Are you so sure? See my other reply a little bit higher up in the thread about the GNU Free Documentation License.
Re:It's funny that the GPL itself isn't GPL.
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Then license it under the GNU Free Documentation License, the purpose of which "is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially."
If a creative work is meant to be "free," and the GPL is Mr. Stallman's creative work, let's see him put his money where his mouth is.
Re:It's funny that the GPL itself isn't GPL.
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Or, another way of looking at it. Back to his own words (or his foundation's words. No sense splitting hairs.) for a moment. This is key:
Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator.
Mr. Stallman wishes to preserve the GPL's "integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator." His own creative work, and it's intent, should be protected. But yet your creative work, your software -- ALL software, were Mr. Stallman's ideal to be universal, as he desires -- must be free. Free to exist, to be taken, used, varied, forked, offshot, consolidated, consumed, made better, worse, or ever worse -- different -- and your concern for your software's integrity as a work representative of your intentions as it's author or creator, be damned.
Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator.
That one sentence shows the flaw in the ideal. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If the ideals behind the GPL are that strong, then the GPL would survive if released under its own terms, and Mr. Stallman would have nothing to lose by releasing it as such. But Mr. Stallman does having something to lose -- his total credibility. If he subjects his ideal to his ideal, it crumbles. Perhaps, as it should.
Re:It's funny that the GPL itself isn't GPL.
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
I'm not saying he never has. What I want to know is, why not the GPL itself? Why hold such tight control over it? Why hold it up as the premiere, if not the *only* way to do business the right, moral, and free way, but not subject it the ideals it purports?
Why not let folks take it and modify it? Why not have variants, offshoots of the GPL?
One might answer, "because that would introduce unintended consequences, difficulties or complexities" into the free software realm. So, what? Doesn't freeing up the software do the same thing? Don't forks add complexities and difficulties? Why is it a good thing for software released under the license, and not for the license itself?
If the ideal's own treatise could not survive being made subject to the ideal itself, ultimately, how reliable is the ideal?
It's funny that the GPL itself isn't GPL.
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"* The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M. Stallman
"Some copyright licenses are no doubt known, in the restricted circle of one firm or law office, as the achievement of a single author's acumen or insight. But it is safe to say that there is no other copyright license in the world that is so strongly identified with the achievements, and the philosophy, of a single public figure. Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator. Under his guidance, the Free Software Foundation, which holds the copyright of the GPL, will coordinate and direct the process of its modification."...and as such, you can't take it, modify it, shape it to your needs, and pass it along to others to do the same.
Interesting, Mr. Stallman. Subject others' creative works to your ideals, but your own creative work, you protect from the exercise of those same own ideals.
You really shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it, too, like that.
At first, I was a little excited to see that Ghost was *finally* nearing release.
Shortly after, I sighed, and resigned myself to a life without it, because unlike most Slashdotters, I've not forgotten the bnetd futtbucking, and I intend to keep up the Blizzard Boycot.
But then I looked at the screenshots, and decided that I'm really not missing anything.
This game looks God-awful. For as long as it took, you'd think they'd have the look of the characters and the environments completely down and polished.
This kind of interests me, because it parallels the mostly liberal reaction to the war on drugs -- rather than wasting our time and resources tracking down these "outlaws", let's "legalize what they're doing," "regulate what they're doing," and "take our cut of what they're doing." and watch all the related problems goes away.
The nice thing about this situation is that (and, granted the criticism is coming from a competitor, so the mileage may vary,) somebody is standing up and saying "there will be unintended consequences of this, and here's a few of them." Now if only someone would do that on the "legalize drugs" front so we can finalize realize how stupid that idea is, too.
[Amen that "less theft is better." Now let's find, what, 536 or so electable "less theft" candidates and start turning this place around.]
Again, no contradiction.
You're missing maybe the point that (because it really wasn't mentioned here, some digging would be required to fill in the blank) in the Objectivist world of perfect Capitalism, what little government there is -- and whose sole responsibility is the protection of individuals property rights -- is totally voluntarily funded. There would *be* no taxation, no mandatory relinquisment of any portion of one's wealth to the government. If you give money to the government, it's of your own free will, and likely, because you've deemed that it's in your best interest to do so.
Were the above the case, and there were *no* taxes to pay, I'd *certainly* still be willing to chip in a few bucks to fund a military, police force and judiciary, because it *certainly* would be in my best interest to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
All this neat stuff we can do, and we *still* dismiss intelligent design as a possibility.
*chuckle* That's really interesting. Sad and funny, but interesting.
BTW: It's nice to actually have a discussion on /. with somebody who can type in complete sentences =)
;)
:) I reached a lot of objectivism's conclusions long before I ever read Rand. I read The Fountainhead without really seeing much of her philosophy shining through. (Probably because, as my intro to Rand, I tended to skip over the multi-page diatribes. I've tried re-reading it. I still can't.) Atlas Shrugged made the last few pieces of my own personal puzzle "click" for me. I identify myself as being mostly objectivist, deist (and non-contradictorally so, but that's a long story) and perhaps a tinge of buddhism, (I did my homework -- you seem to have an interest in it, yourself. :) ) in that I don't particularly crave much -- not power, not material wealth, not sex, not success -- although I disagree with the buddhist tenet that all life is suffering (or some variation on the word), there's actually some parallels between objectivism and buddhism. (But then, I'll admit I've done very little study of Buddhism except for the little that's on wikipedia. I'm a quick study, however, and that's enough for me to know what I think is wrong with it. I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche either, and I've not read more than 10 words of his. *shrug*) I crave only my own happiness and freedom. I wish to live as much for my own sake and no one else's as I possibly can. I wish to make as few concessions to that as possible.
There's a few of us who can, but we're usually modded flamebait pretty quickly.
If you read her books in context of her and her personality, her whole philosophy is lashing out at a perceived "injustice"... she feels that her brilliance should be exalted by the world, and since it wasn't, she wrote horrible, horrible books about a magic world where she would have the power to do whatever she wants and rise to the top and spend her days in the company of other "greats."
I tend to separate Rand's personality from her philosophy. Rand had a *brilliant* mind, a simply amazing ability to think, and created a wonderful philosophical framework, but had trouble walking the talk -- as I wrote recently in a discussion with another friend of mine, "Rand couldn't practice all of what she preached. In her personal relationships, if you didn't worship her at all costs, you were an outcast. If you didn't agree with her logic, and reach her conclusions, you were an outcast... The people around her had to live for _her_, had to love _her_, many times at the expense of their own happiness and values, which is a stunning major violation of the philosophy" that you live for your own sake, and do *not* sacrifice yourself for the sakes of others. (Wow, if you've never tried it, quoting yourself is _weeeeird_.) Rand's life fails to imitate her art. In her work, characters took time to reach the conclusions they did. In life, people do the same, and no amount of external will can change that. Rand also failed to recognize and/or accept that which she called in her work "errors of mind." She identified them as breaches of morality.
I also find that a lot of the people who identify with her also feel that. Obviously, I don't know anything about you at all, so please don't think I am holding you to that characterization, but Rand's views play perfectly into the mindset of those who feel THEY should be on top, because those who are on top aren't as "good."
I'm self-admittedly tough to pigeonhole.
I will admit to having little patience for mediocrity and a hatred for any infringement of my rights. I will admit to shaking my head at the beliefs of most religions. I think that most people have no idea -- for better or for worse -- their true value. I'm fairly aware of mine, but I do have things here and there yet to sort out.
I know what she alleges her philosophy is, but in practice, when everyone starts acting selfishly, well; when the few super brilliant movers and shakers she c
That explains a lot. Your summation is totally, utterly and completely wrong!
Altruism, the notion that you must sacrifice yourself -- your time, your money, your mind, your best efforts -- to others at no gain to yourself, is absolutely vilified in Rand's philosophy. Non-selfishness IS altruism. Altruism IS self-destruction. Sadly, altruism is the mode and motive of nearly every way of life, government and religion on the face of the Earth. (With the possible exception of LeVey's Satanism, which should be rejected, too, for other reasons which I'll leave up to the reader to figure out.) Sacrifice to society or state for the Common Good. Sacrifice to your fellow man for reasons of faith. As such, no matter which way you go - Red State or Blue, Christian, Muslim or Jew, Commie or supposed Capitalist (there is no true Capitalism in the world, sadly), we submit ourselves willingly to our own eventual destruction.
A more accurate, although still-lacking, summation would be this:
Every man exists for his own sake, not for the sakes of others.
That summation is lacking because it fails to declare reality to be objective and non-contradictory; it fails to declare reason, logical non-contradictory identification of reality, as a man's only means of survival; it only touches on the declaration that a man's pursuit of his own happiness is his highest purpose; it is only by inference that one could conclude from it that voluntary trade -- of best effort for best effort, value for value -- for mutual benefit is the only acceptable basis of any relationship. But if I have to come up with the _best_ possible summation, that's it in a nutshell.
I agree with you almost totally. Where I don't, it's really not enough to really get into, it being 2:30 in the morning and all. *grin* So, suffice it to say, "Right On, Brother!"
And don't worry about me being modded flamebait, I'm used to it. *chuckle*
Well, let's have it then. What is your two-sentence summation of Rand's philosophy?
Really, like, all you Slashdot folks, go out and read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, like, now.
Yes, I know I reference the book quite a lot. Yes, I know I'm annoying about it. Yes, I mean it. You really do need to read it. And when you do, think about modern-day achievements such as WoW, and those whose best efforts went into producing it. And whose less-capable "competitors" wish now to destroy that success by implication, smear, guilt, FUD or force.
WoW, by all accounts, is the next best thing to sliced bread. (I don't play it. I'm still pissed at Vivendi over the bnetd stuff, for basically playing the same underhanded games that I'm going to lament in the next few paragraphs.)
So, well, if it's threatening the products produced by the rest of the industry -- guess what?! IT'S DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO.
If the other game producers out there aren't competing well, don't penalize WoW. Don't blame it's success for the shortfalls of the rest of the industry -- go back to the drawing board and make a new, better fucking product. Grab that money, grab that market share by putting forth the product of your BEST EFFORT -- not by guilting, smearing, blaming, or -- God forbid -- legislating or regulating those who already do so.
Blizzard, if your product is as great as everyone says, more power to you. Accept no offer or tactic that those in your industry less able than you seem to be gearing up to use against you.
I'm not forgetting a thing.
In the book, Ellis Wyatt, dismayed after taxes are imposed on a flourishing Colorado in order to benefit its less successful neighbors, sets fire to his own oil wells and disappears, leaving behind a sign saying "I'm leaving it as I found it. Take over. It's yours."
While I don't disagree completely with your first suggestion -- I firmly favor the second amendment, even if I am too accident prone to personally exercise it -- your implied second suggestion goes too far. I'd argue for a third, similar to the premise of the book: Strike. Quit. Whatever you want to call it. Realize that the government needs _your_ permission to take from you what it does, then deny them your cooperation. Take your mind and your ability to produce what the government so desperately requires -- ideas, wealth -- out of the equation. Shut down your businesses. Liquidate your assets. Cash out your investments -- don't worry about the one-time tax penalties, they won't last the government long. Live off your assets (paying cash, under-the-table as much as possible) for as long as you can, then apply for the benefits of the system that you're entitled to. Remove yourself from the economy and the tax base, sign on to do your own part to help drain it, then sit back, relax, and watch both crumble. Imagine how quickly the government would fold if the 50% that pay 90% of the taxes in this country up and quit tomorrow. A beautiful site, indeed.
I'm not going to bitch about gas prices. I'm not going to bitch about taxes. I'm not going to bitch about SUVs, Hybrids, or bicycles.
I'm going to, instead, smile to myself and tip my hat to Ellis Wyatt -- a fictional character in Rand's Atlas Shrugged, who figured out a method to extract crude from the same Colorado oil shale. And to the real-world Men of the Mind that have made it possible today.
Nothing But Flowers
by Talking Heads
Here we stand/ Like an Adam and an Eve/ Waterfalls/ The Garden of Eden/ Two fools in love/ So beautiful and strong/ The birds in the trees/ Are smiling upon them/ From the age of the dinosaurs/ Cars have run on gasoline/ Where, Where have they gone?/ Now, it's nothing but flowers/
There was a factory/ Now there are mountains and rivers/
We caught a rattlesnake/ Now we got something for dinner/
There was a shopping mall/ Now it's all covered with flowers/
If this is paradise/ I wish I had a lawnmower/
Years ago/ I was an angry young man/ I'd pretend/ That I was a billboard/ Standing tall/ By the side of the road/ I fell in love/ With a beautiful highway/ This used to be real estate/ Now it's only fields and trees/ Where, where is the town/ Now, it's nothing but flowers/ The highways and cars/ Were sacrificed for agriculture/ I thought that we'd start over/ But I guess I was wrong/
Once there were parking lots/ Now it's a peaceful oasis/
This was a Pizza Hut/ Now it's all covered with daisies/
I miss the honky tonks,/ Dairy Queens, and 7-Elevens/
And as things fell apart/ Nobody paid much attention/
I dream of cherry pies,/ Candy bars, and chocolate chip cookies/
We used to microwave/ Now we just eat nuts and berries/
This was a discount store,/ Now it's turned into a cornfield/
Don't leave me stranded here/ I can't get used to this lifestyle/
[editor's note: "Ever," not "either." in that first line.]
[editor's other note: even with my typo's, it still reads better than The Great Gatsby.]
...that F. Scott Fitzgerald also wrote The Great Gatsby, one of the steamiest piles of literary crap, either.
He's wrong in this case, too. Contradictions don't exist. If you can hold in your mind two contradictory thoughs in your mind and still function, you're not really functioning -- you're cheating yourself. Sorry, F. Scott. Too bad about the book, too.
Yes, I realize I'm going to sound a little Randbotty here, but if you're facing a seeming contradiction, check your premises. At least one of them is surely false.
In the examples given in the original post, the authors premises are certainly wrong. In the case of people being both pro-life and pro-death penalty, the seeming contradiction arises from the catch-phrase labels given each. In reality, in both cases, life is valued -- in the case of the unborn, that life is is valuable enough to be allowed to happen. In capital punishment, that life is valuable enough to be revoked as punishment for particularly horrid crimes against the life/liberty/minds of others. In the example of open source, it is not that information wants to be free, it's that certain people want software to be free (free as in beer, not as in speech, contrary to what RMS seems to tout. But then, he's in serious need of premise-checking) -- these people despise the software moguls for much the same reasons that the movers and shakers of the industrial age were despised. It really has more to do with class envy than any poor, tired, huddled masses of information yearning to be free.
MAKE YOUR TIME.
Are you so sure that Mr. Stallman believes no such thing?
Read "Why Software Should Not Have Owners," by -- you guessed it -- Richard Stallman.
So which is it -- that Mr. Stallman wants owners to be able to protect the integrity of their creative work, or that authors relinquish ownership of their creative works?
You. can't. have. both.
You're missing the point, though. Again, in his own words:
"Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator."
Mr. Stallman apparently believes that an author or creator has the right to protect the integrity and intent of their own creative work.
Mr. Stallman apparently also believes that software are creative works. Otherwise, the view that GPL is a "copyright" based license fails.
But yet he does not believe that the author or creator of software should have the right to protect the integrity and intent of the software they created -- everyone instead must be able to study it, copy it, modify it, use it -- and very likely in a number of ways the work's creator would not have envisioned, never intended, and has no way to prevent. To release software under the GPL is to, for all practical purposes, give up your right to preserve the integrity of your work.
Mr. Stallman holds, simultaneously, two contradictory views about the value of ones own creative works.
Are you so sure? See my other reply a little bit higher up in the thread about the GNU Free Documentation License.
Then license it under the GNU Free Documentation License, the purpose of which "is to make a manual, textbook, or other
functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially."
If a creative work is meant to be "free," and the GPL is Mr. Stallman's creative work, let's see him put his money where his mouth is.
Or, another way of looking at it. Back to his own words (or his foundation's words. No sense splitting hairs.) for a moment. This is key:
Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator.
Mr. Stallman wishes to preserve the GPL's "integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator." His own creative work, and it's intent, should be protected. But yet your creative work, your software -- ALL software, were Mr. Stallman's ideal to be universal, as he desires -- must be free. Free to exist, to be taken, used, varied, forked, offshot, consolidated, consumed, made better, worse, or ever worse -- different -- and your concern for your software's integrity as a work representative of your intentions as it's
author or creator, be damned.
Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator.
That one sentence shows the flaw in the ideal. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If the ideals behind the GPL are that strong, then the GPL would survive if released under its own terms, and Mr. Stallman would have nothing to lose by releasing it as such. But Mr. Stallman does having something to lose -- his total credibility. If he subjects his ideal to his ideal, it crumbles. Perhaps, as it should.
I'm not saying he never has. What I want to know is, why not the GPL itself? Why hold such tight control over it? Why hold it up as the premiere, if not the *only* way to do business the right, moral, and free way, but not subject it the ideals it purports?
Why not let folks take it and modify it? Why not have variants, offshoots of the GPL?
One might answer, "because that would introduce unintended consequences, difficulties or complexities" into the free software realm. So, what? Doesn't freeing up the software do the same thing? Don't forks add complexities and difficulties? Why is it a good thing for software released under the license, and not for the license itself?
If the ideal's own treatise could not survive being made subject to the ideal itself, ultimately, how reliable is the ideal?
"* The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M. Stallman
...and as such, you can't take it, modify it, shape it to your needs, and pass it along to others to do the same.
"Some copyright licenses are no doubt known, in the restricted circle of one firm or law office, as the achievement of a single author's acumen or insight. But it is safe to say that there is no other copyright license in the world that is so strongly identified with the achievements, and the philosophy, of a single public figure. Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator. Under his guidance, the Free Software Foundation, which holds the copyright of the GPL, will coordinate and direct the process of its modification."
Interesting, Mr. Stallman. Subject others' creative works to your ideals, but your own creative work, you protect from the exercise of those same own ideals.
You really shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it, too, like that.
The problem with this approach is this: If the spider doesn't bother to even read the robots.txt file, nothing gets trapped.
At first, I was a little excited to see that Ghost was *finally* nearing release.
Shortly after, I sighed, and resigned myself to a life without it, because unlike most Slashdotters, I've not forgotten the bnetd futtbucking, and I intend to keep up the Blizzard Boycot.
But then I looked at the screenshots, and decided that I'm really not missing anything.
This game looks God-awful. For as long as it took, you'd think they'd have the look of the characters and the environments completely down and polished.
What, you don't think that legalizing drugs is not mostly about the government getting a cut of it?
This kind of interests me, because it parallels the mostly liberal reaction to the war on drugs -- rather than wasting our time and resources tracking down these "outlaws", let's "legalize what they're doing," "regulate what they're doing," and "take our cut of what they're doing." and watch all the related problems goes away.
The nice thing about this situation is that (and, granted the criticism is coming from a competitor, so the mileage may vary,) somebody is standing up and saying "there will be unintended consequences of this, and here's a few of them." Now if only someone would do that on the "legalize drugs" front so we can finalize realize how stupid that idea is, too.
Welcome to a Brave New World of Tech Support Hell.
[Amen that "less theft is better." Now let's find, what, 536 or so electable "less theft" candidates and start turning this place around.]
Again, no contradiction.
You're missing maybe the point that (because it really wasn't mentioned here, some digging would be required to fill in the blank) in the Objectivist world of perfect Capitalism, what little government there is -- and whose sole responsibility is the protection of individuals property rights -- is totally voluntarily funded. There would *be* no taxation, no mandatory relinquisment of any portion of one's wealth to the government. If you give money to the government, it's of your own free will, and likely, because you've deemed that it's in your best interest to do so.
Were the above the case, and there were *no* taxes to pay, I'd *certainly* still be willing to chip in a few bucks to fund a military, police force and judiciary, because it *certainly* would be in my best interest to do so.
Again, no contradiction.
Hopefully now, that's clear enough for everyone.