Which gives lie to this sort of stunt. Ostensibly, you do this sort of thing for public safety. But if you facilitate the theft of guns, by definition you're helping to remove guns from the hands of people who follow laws and put them in the hands of criminals. Nevertheless, this sort of stunt is done because the issue is political and you have to win political battles because the other side is full of bad people.
Wow. I never looked at it that way. When you take something that's not yours, the other person doesn't have it anymore. People who've pirated books, it seems, are taking something that's not theirs and so they really ought to give them back. Otherwise, the publishers won't have books anymore. How will people have access to knowledge if the publishers have all their books stolen?
The famous Gunfight at the O.K. Corral would never have happened if everyone had been following the law.
I prefer to avoid discussions about guns (pro or con) these days because it is such an emotional issue. But I can point out that your statement is a truism. Clanton and the McLaury brothers were rustlers. They had a habit of not following the law and that's why the Earps were pursuing them. It is true that had Clanton and the McLaurys been following the law, the gunfight would not have happened. But, then, if they'd been following the law, they would not have been pursued. (Of course, the Earps were deputy U.S. Marshals and thus one should expect them to bear arms.)
One may as well say that (P1) if people followed all laws, and (P2) there are laws against carrying guns, then (C) murders with guns would not occur. It is a truism. If premise one is in fact the case then it implies the conclusion, since murder is also illegal. The second premise is immaterial. If everyone followed laws, then they wouldn't commit murder.
It's easy to defend gun rights when you pick and choose your history.
It is not easy to defend or to attack gun rights if you at all take the matter seriously and address it honestly. Since the first premise above (P1) is simply untrue, it becomes a genuine political, legislative, and even moral problem. When we recognize that simply legislating against something (like murder, or smoking marijuana, or anything else good, bad, or indifferent) does not make it stop, we take only the first step closer to understanding the problem. We have to follow this recognition with a series of questions before we can even begin to craft policy to address the problem. Any further gun restrictions should consider these questions: do we place undue burden on those who follow the law?; do we have a means of ensuring that those who follow the law are protected?; how will the law address the quantity of guns already present?; will enforcement of this law require the infringement of other rights or liberties? (e.g. an outright ban and confiscation of guns, something almost no gun contract advocates are calling for, would require an absolute police state to enforce with any effect at all; even so, the question is equally necessary for any new law); will enforcement of this law create other harms greater than that which it seeks to mitigate (cf. marijuana laws)?
Most of the same questions can (and should) be applied to the kinds of gun law liberalization (in the old sense of the word) efforts advocated by the likes of the NRA. One must also weigh such suggestions as the arming of teachers or placing armed guards in schools against other potential harms this could cause (e.g. greater risk of accident or making children--who should be raised as free men and women--accustomed to living and working in fortress-like-institutions under armed guard).
Anyone who tells you that the answer to this problem is easy is either deluded or lying. In either case, that one will certainly not craft wise policy. For the liar, on the one hand, has his own agenda and cares little for the concerns of others (whether they be for safety or liberty). But the deluded, on the other hand, if both more common and worse. Whether he wishes to take all the guns away from those who are obeying laws or to put armed guards in schools and ban violent movies, he fails to recognize this constant fact of human experience: people will continue to break the laws and to do evil things to one another. In one case, it will be that no one who keeps the laws has a gun, but the one who breaks them kills the defenseless. In the other, it will be that a man with a badge in a school does something terrible, or maybe just negligent, and innocents will still die. Anyone who says that the answer to this is problem is easy is wrong.
Or they should be carrying supplies, weapons, and other matériel, but only as far as it takes to find some packing crates and enough C-130s to get the hell out of that place. Unfortunately, until they do this they'll have to carry bullets, not bread, because we've placed them in circumstances where they cannot worry about saving other lives as their own are at such great risk. Hell, half the bullets will have to be insurance against blue-on-green.
The technology was first developed to more thoroughly and efficiently ensure that signal propagation met the regulatory safety standards that protect against interference with an aircraft's critical electrical systems, Boeing stated.
Even for tests, they're probably not yet allowed to have those 200-300 people in seats, using wifi, while the plane is aloft.
It is normally like a zero sum game, but in the case of time travel it would perhaps less so. Knowing the future, one might be better able to allocate resources (i.e. to be an entrepreneur in Schumpeter's sense) to projects that are going to be successful. With less waste of capital and resources on dead end projects one could--in theory--advance science and technology through investment. Of course, this would only work well for the first year or so. Although you did manage to make a bundle and advance technology, once you'd contaminated the timeline sufficiently your knowledge of the future would be, well, anachronistic. You'd then be stuck in the same situation as most other investors.
No one says in the abstract that he has to rise above the fray. But if he's going to pontificate about how others shouldn't rant, how they should be secure in their beliefs rather than nastily critical, and how they should allow others to recognize the superiority of their approach if it is, in fact, superior, etc., then he ought to be a bit more considerate of his own words. As a self-contradictory man once said, "If you think you'll convince people to see things your way by ranting and being a dick [...]"
Being a hypocrite does not ipso facto make someone wrong about the point they're making. He could be absolutely right about RMS and everyone else, and still be guilty of the same things. But the attack he's making above against these unnamed others is premised on their supposed moral failings. If he demonstrates the same sort of behaviours (say, by calling former users of his products "depressed hipsters" because his company changed features they liked and wanted to retain), then he has undermined his own authority before his audience by making an argument that applies equally well to him. The audience will just hear him and say, "Who in Godwin's name does this guy think he is, just accusing a bunch of people of being McCarthyists because they don't approve of his organization and product?"
Um... yes. Frequently. Perhaps too frequently. Were you not? It was a honest attempt to point to some answers about what I took as an honest question. Note, in any case, that the last comment was not directed towards you but towards Shuttleworth's comment.
Quite welcome. I have to admit, I'm puzzled at how your polite, diplomatic, question provoked that response. Maybe the guy's gotten too much hate mail and just doesn't know how to respond to an honest question anymore. I can't begin to guess.
See here and here for a sampling. Canonical is listed, but they're hardly the only one. Then there's also the famous (infamous?) Gnome Census from a couple of years ago.
This friendly fire stuff is uncalled for. Everyone who claims to be the only one who really cares about Linux, on the desktop or as a whole, should be reminded of the Judgment of Solomon.
Well, I feel the same way about this as I do about McCarthyism. The people who rant about proprietary software are basically insecure about their own beliefs, and it's that fear that makes them so nastily critical.
So, who's being nastily critical? Comparing free software advocates to Joseph McCarthy? Great way to keep it classy, to rise above the fray.
McCarthy used the power of government to persecute people he distrusted or who were his political enemies. RMS complaining about the combination of free and propriety software is hardly comparable. As a matter of fact, those who leverage government to enforce vague patents, like vague accusations of communism, come much closer.
If your way of seeing the world IS genuinely more productive, effective, efficient, insightful and usable, then you should be confident that you will win in the long term, and folk who dabble in a different way of working will come to realize that you're right eventually.
Would that this were true. It is an old enlightenment superstition that, given enough time, truth will triumph on this earth. Truth, however, has no special claim on human beings. Power tends to be the victor more frequently. Your way of seeing the world can be the most insightful, but if government and corporatists together hold the means of spreading that way of seeing the world, you cannot communicate your insights to others.
Yet, there's a deeper problem with Shuttleworth's claim. The list he gives, "productive, effective, efficient, insightful and usable," these are all good things. But they are not the only good things. Nor would I use these as criteria for judging what is right. Most of these are only secondary goods. Productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency are only good when they're used to advance good ends. They are only desirable as a means to some other good. It is primary goods that offer the best criteria for us to "come to realize [what's] right". Primary goods are things that are desirable in themselves and not for the sake of some other good. Justice, for example, is desirable, whether or not it is productive or effective. Happiness should be sought, whether or not it is efficient. Some of the best things in life (e.g. sex, beer, science-fiction, art, religion, philosophy, playing with children, music, fishing, amiable conversation) are highly inefficient.
Were free software to base its claim to being the "right" way of doing things purely on productivity, efficiency, et al., then it would be impoverished. It would offer us nothing better than more stuff at a cheaper price. Of course it should strive to be productive and effective, usable and efficient, but only if it is providing some good. The fact that free software is free, that it can offer access to knowledge to those who want it, that it can in some small way ameliorate inequalities and injustices caused by those who through IP law claim ownership of the mind and of nature, that it is shared, these are the best claims free software has to make on being the "right" way of seeing the world. And, Mr. Shuttleworth, I am no McCarthyist for saying so.
Just a reminder, der national Sicherheitsstaat has no sense of humor. It also wants to know why you've been experimenting with fusion and stainless steel (armored?) cars. Expect a visit from black SUVs in your near future.
Sorry I had to inform you of all this. It's my responsibility and my burden. Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
I can confirm that the company does not believe there is demand for fast, reliable internet connections. This is true, at least, where only Time Warner is the only available broadband.
Despite my cheeky comment which set off this little flame war [...] I'm sorry such a throwaway comment was perceived as a slight against people of rural extraction.
It is good that you weren't trying to start a flamewar, since it would have been a poor one. Most of the commenters have been civil. You'll notice above, when I'd initially responded to roninmagus, I recognized the possibility that it was intended as a harmless joke. Even so, I thought I would sympathize with roninmagus' complaint, since genuine provincial slurs do appear on these boards whenever certain states are named in articles and it can take a surprisingly long time for them to be modded down. It was good, I thought to give a reminder that not everyone thinks that way. I hope the initial comment I made didn't come off as too aggressive.
I feel it also necessary to say that the provincialism is a two way street; i.e. often it's actually provincial. I've a good friend from NJ who moved down here to KY (turns out you can live in KY on what you'd pay in taxes, esp. property taxes, in NJ). He has at times gotten as good as he gave, looking down on the backward hillbillies as they looked down on the ignorant yankee. It is indeed natural, but that doesn't make it desirable or acceptable. The only difference between the provinicalism of provincials and that of those from higher prestige areas is the relative power each has in the broader culture. Even so, any attempt to understand people one disagrees with is a sign of humanity.
Claiming that a UI element (like the start screen or the ribbon) is a "two hour learning curve" is disingenuous. [...] It can take weeks, months even, to get used to doing things a different way.
What is more, this is/. Most of the users here have to do support, either in an official (work) or unofficial (family). If a new UI takes a two hour learning curve, it will take a great many more hours of our time helping others to get through that learning curve.
"Greenspun panned almost every aspect of Microsoft's new software, noting that Microsoft had four years to study Android and more than five to examine iOS, but still couldn't build a usable tablet experience..."
Meanwhile, Apple and various Android manufacturers are suing one another on account of studying one another's usable tablet experience. As one or the other is banned from country after country, a competitor with an original, unpatented, unusable tablet experience suddenly finds an advantage.
Since we're being serious, I must ask: How do you reconcile the notion that prejudice toward one's perceived inferiors is not at work with dismissing an entire group of people as "fanatics of mesopotamian bronze age fairytales"?
It could be r3VOLutionary if only they wrote Ron Paul across the side. Though, given his views on the Fed, I think he'd object to its self-inflationary capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Which gives lie to this sort of stunt. Ostensibly, you do this sort of thing for public safety. But if you facilitate the theft of guns, by definition you're helping to remove guns from the hands of people who follow laws and put them in the hands of criminals. Nevertheless, this sort of stunt is done because the issue is political and you have to win political battles because the other side is full of bad people.
Wow. I never looked at it that way. When you take something that's not yours, the other person doesn't have it anymore. People who've pirated books, it seems, are taking something that's not theirs and so they really ought to give them back. Otherwise, the publishers won't have books anymore. How will people have access to knowledge if the publishers have all their books stolen?
I prefer to avoid discussions about guns (pro or con) these days because it is such an emotional issue. But I can point out that your statement is a truism. Clanton and the McLaury brothers were rustlers. They had a habit of not following the law and that's why the Earps were pursuing them. It is true that had Clanton and the McLaurys been following the law, the gunfight would not have happened. But, then, if they'd been following the law, they would not have been pursued. (Of course, the Earps were deputy U.S. Marshals and thus one should expect them to bear arms.)
One may as well say that (P1) if people followed all laws, and (P2) there are laws against carrying guns, then (C) murders with guns would not occur. It is a truism. If premise one is in fact the case then it implies the conclusion, since murder is also illegal. The second premise is immaterial. If everyone followed laws, then they wouldn't commit murder.
It is not easy to defend or to attack gun rights if you at all take the matter seriously and address it honestly. Since the first premise above (P1) is simply untrue, it becomes a genuine political, legislative, and even moral problem. When we recognize that simply legislating against something (like murder, or smoking marijuana, or anything else good, bad, or indifferent) does not make it stop, we take only the first step closer to understanding the problem. We have to follow this recognition with a series of questions before we can even begin to craft policy to address the problem. Any further gun restrictions should consider these questions: do we place undue burden on those who follow the law?; do we have a means of ensuring that those who follow the law are protected?; how will the law address the quantity of guns already present?; will enforcement of this law require the infringement of other rights or liberties? (e.g. an outright ban and confiscation of guns, something almost no gun contract advocates are calling for, would require an absolute police state to enforce with any effect at all; even so, the question is equally necessary for any new law); will enforcement of this law create other harms greater than that which it seeks to mitigate (cf. marijuana laws)?
Most of the same questions can (and should) be applied to the kinds of gun law liberalization (in the old sense of the word) efforts advocated by the likes of the NRA. One must also weigh such suggestions as the arming of teachers or placing armed guards in schools against other potential harms this could cause (e.g. greater risk of accident or making children--who should be raised as free men and women--accustomed to living and working in fortress-like-institutions under armed guard).
Anyone who tells you that the answer to this problem is easy is either deluded or lying. In either case, that one will certainly not craft wise policy. For the liar, on the one hand, has his own agenda and cares little for the concerns of others (whether they be for safety or liberty). But the deluded, on the other hand, if both more common and worse. Whether he wishes to take all the guns away from those who are obeying laws or to put armed guards in schools and ban violent movies, he fails to recognize this constant fact of human experience: people will continue to break the laws and to do evil things to one another. In one case, it will be that no one who keeps the laws has a gun, but the one who breaks them kills the defenseless. In the other, it will be that a man with a badge in a school does something terrible, or maybe just negligent, and innocents will still die. Anyone who says that the answer to this is problem is easy is wrong.
In which of the following ways would you have been arrested if your child-self had gone to school today:
1) possession of a chemistry set;
2) possession of a pocket knife;
3) terroristic threatening ("Man, I'm gonna kill you at Mortal Kombat tonight.");
4) all of the above
Try this link instead.
Maybe it's a scheme for the karma starved to pick through the comments in the July article and repost Score:5 comments.
Because the mujahideen already knows that trick.
That's how we supplied them in the 1980's. They'll never expect this.
Or they should be carrying supplies, weapons, and other matériel, but only as far as it takes to find some packing crates and enough C-130s to get the hell out of that place. Unfortunately, until they do this they'll have to carry bullets, not bread, because we've placed them in circumstances where they cannot worry about saving other lives as their own are at such great risk. Hell, half the bullets will have to be insurance against blue-on-green.
Even for tests, they're probably not yet allowed to have those 200-300 people in seats, using wifi, while the plane is aloft.
It is normally like a zero sum game, but in the case of time travel it would perhaps less so. Knowing the future, one might be better able to allocate resources (i.e. to be an entrepreneur in Schumpeter's sense) to projects that are going to be successful. With less waste of capital and resources on dead end projects one could--in theory--advance science and technology through investment. Of course, this would only work well for the first year or so. Although you did manage to make a bundle and advance technology, once you'd contaminated the timeline sufficiently your knowledge of the future would be, well, anachronistic. You'd then be stuck in the same situation as most other investors.
Why would you put the people in charge on the second bus?
Great. Now I've got to go back and watch them again. It just occurred to me to wonder whether the Antarctica gate flushes in the other direction.
No one says in the abstract that he has to rise above the fray. But if he's going to pontificate about how others shouldn't rant, how they should be secure in their beliefs rather than nastily critical, and how they should allow others to recognize the superiority of their approach if it is, in fact, superior, etc., then he ought to be a bit more considerate of his own words. As a self-contradictory man once said, "If you think you'll convince people to see things your way by ranting and being a dick [...]"
Being a hypocrite does not ipso facto make someone wrong about the point they're making. He could be absolutely right about RMS and everyone else, and still be guilty of the same things. But the attack he's making above against these unnamed others is premised on their supposed moral failings. If he demonstrates the same sort of behaviours (say, by calling former users of his products "depressed hipsters" because his company changed features they liked and wanted to retain), then he has undermined his own authority before his audience by making an argument that applies equally well to him. The audience will just hear him and say, "Who in Godwin's name does this guy think he is, just accusing a bunch of people of being McCarthyists because they don't approve of his organization and product?"
Um... yes. Frequently. Perhaps too frequently. Were you not? It was a honest attempt to point to some answers about what I took as an honest question. Note, in any case, that the last comment was not directed towards you but towards Shuttleworth's comment.
Quite welcome. I have to admit, I'm puzzled at how your polite, diplomatic, question provoked that response. Maybe the guy's gotten too much hate mail and just doesn't know how to respond to an honest question anymore. I can't begin to guess.
See here and here for a sampling. Canonical is listed, but they're hardly the only one. Then there's also the famous (infamous?) Gnome Census from a couple of years ago.
This friendly fire stuff is uncalled for. Everyone who claims to be the only one who really cares about Linux, on the desktop or as a whole, should be reminded of the Judgment of Solomon.
So, who's being nastily critical? Comparing free software advocates to Joseph McCarthy? Great way to keep it classy, to rise above the fray.
McCarthy used the power of government to persecute people he distrusted or who were his political enemies. RMS complaining about the combination of free and propriety software is hardly comparable. As a matter of fact, those who leverage government to enforce vague patents, like vague accusations of communism, come much closer.
Would that this were true. It is an old enlightenment superstition that, given enough time, truth will triumph on this earth. Truth, however, has no special claim on human beings. Power tends to be the victor more frequently. Your way of seeing the world can be the most insightful, but if government and corporatists together hold the means of spreading that way of seeing the world, you cannot communicate your insights to others.
Yet, there's a deeper problem with Shuttleworth's claim. The list he gives, "productive, effective, efficient, insightful and usable," these are all good things. But they are not the only good things. Nor would I use these as criteria for judging what is right. Most of these are only secondary goods. Productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency are only good when they're used to advance good ends. They are only desirable as a means to some other good. It is primary goods that offer the best criteria for us to "come to realize [what's] right". Primary goods are things that are desirable in themselves and not for the sake of some other good. Justice, for example, is desirable, whether or not it is productive or effective. Happiness should be sought, whether or not it is efficient. Some of the best things in life (e.g. sex, beer, science-fiction, art, religion, philosophy, playing with children, music, fishing, amiable conversation) are highly inefficient.
Were free software to base its claim to being the "right" way of doing things purely on productivity, efficiency, et al., then it would be impoverished. It would offer us nothing better than more stuff at a cheaper price. Of course it should strive to be productive and effective, usable and efficient, but only if it is providing some good. The fact that free software is free, that it can offer access to knowledge to those who want it, that it can in some small way ameliorate inequalities and injustices caused by those who through IP law claim ownership of the mind and of nature, that it is shared, these are the best claims free software has to make on being the "right" way of seeing the world. And, Mr. Shuttleworth, I am no McCarthyist for saying so.
Contrary to what you'd think from what politicians say, Israel is not a treaty ally.
Sorry I had to inform you of all this. It's my responsibility and my burden. Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
I can confirm that the company does not believe there is demand for fast, reliable internet connections. This is true, at least, where only Time Warner is the only available broadband.
It is good that you weren't trying to start a flamewar, since it would have been a poor one. Most of the commenters have been civil. You'll notice above, when I'd initially responded to roninmagus, I recognized the possibility that it was intended as a harmless joke. Even so, I thought I would sympathize with roninmagus' complaint, since genuine provincial slurs do appear on these boards whenever certain states are named in articles and it can take a surprisingly long time for them to be modded down. It was good, I thought to give a reminder that not everyone thinks that way. I hope the initial comment I made didn't come off as too aggressive.
I feel it also necessary to say that the provincialism is a two way street; i.e. often it's actually provincial. I've a good friend from NJ who moved down here to KY (turns out you can live in KY on what you'd pay in taxes, esp. property taxes, in NJ). He has at times gotten as good as he gave, looking down on the backward hillbillies as they looked down on the ignorant yankee. It is indeed natural, but that doesn't make it desirable or acceptable. The only difference between the provinicalism of provincials and that of those from higher prestige areas is the relative power each has in the broader culture. Even so, any attempt to understand people one disagrees with is a sign of humanity.
What is more, this is /. Most of the users here have to do support, either in an official (work) or unofficial (family). If a new UI takes a two hour learning curve, it will take a great many more hours of our time helping others to get through that learning curve.
Meanwhile, Apple and various Android manufacturers are suing one another on account of studying one another's usable tablet experience. As one or the other is banned from country after country, a competitor with an original, unpatented, unusable tablet experience suddenly finds an advantage.
Since we're being serious, I must ask: How do you reconcile the notion that prejudice toward one's perceived inferiors is not at work with dismissing an entire group of people as "fanatics of mesopotamian bronze age fairytales"?
It could be r3VOLutionary if only they wrote Ron Paul across the side. Though, given his views on the Fed, I think he'd object to its self-inflationary capabilities.