Somehow I missed this the first (and second and third and fourth) time around: The board goes in a PCI slot. So I can offload processing from my CPU to these things. Weird. --
I'll be the first to admit: When it comes to hardware, I have only the vaguest idea what I'm talking about. But I don't understand this line. I went to the website, which was even less clear.
These things are MBs, right? That take PowerPCs? So what does it mean that they "run in Intel machines"? And "Intel machine" is presumably something with a chip from Intel. Does this mean that I can have a computer with two MBs? Or that I can put Intel chips on this MB? Or what? --
No it isn't. Hey look! We can both make unsubstantiated claims!
"Do you really, really think that the man in the street, who is subjected to law enforcement day in and day out, has no reasonable idea of how laws can, are, and should be enforced?"
Yes. Most people have never read a law, attended a public meeting OR been arrested. All they know is what they read in Perry Mason and see on Law & Order. I'm not saying they are stupid--I'm the same way. Are YOU saying that literally anyone could be picked up off the street given no education whatsoever and put into Congress and they would do a good job?
"It matters mightily if the public understands or not a census."
Yes, it DOES matter if "the public" understands the census (and the voting mechanisms). However, is it necessary that the ENTIRE public have that understanding? We wouldn't get anywhere if EVERY SINGLE person needed to understand EVERY SINGLE public procedure.
"How do you know which of the statisticians is right if you're not one?"
I don't. But that's one of the risks I take. The risk is small since I know that if the 2nd statistician isn't being paid by the gov't I can trust him to some extent. And the payoff is big: I don't have to be a statistician AND a cryptographer AND a MBA AND a PhD AND...etc.
"The details of network transmission, cryptography, and database systems take much more to master."
This is just ridiculous. Are you under the impression that ballots are delivered by hand (on horseback) to the President who counts them personally? Ballots (everyone needs to know papermaking) go in a box (everyone needs to know carpentry), which is then shipped securely (everyone needs to know how to build a highway, fix a car and load a gun)...etc.
There are already people whose entire day-to-day job is managing the details of voting procedures. Is it your claim that every citizen needs to be trained for this job in order to vote? --
"I recommend you pick up some CDs by Alan Lomaxbefore you ever fire off again with this "normal people can't think for themselves" argument."
*I* recommend you re-read my post before accusing me of something I am innocent of. I didn't say "normal people can't think". I said "most people don't know". There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity.
"But I wasn't talking about creating laws, but about voting."
Yes, voting about creating laws. Or did you also not read the/. summary?
"It involves making sure there are no duplicate votes, making sure no votes are lost, and counting the votes."
This is all handled "transparently". Joe Blow has no hand in ensuring non-duplicity, etc.
"When this is done with conventional means, everyone can understand how it works; when it is done electronically, only a technological elite can understand how it works."
What conceivable advantage could I have over Joe Schmoe if I understand the mathematics of a process that neither of us participates in? Example: The census. There are obscure and arcane (to a layman) statistical techniques that get applied to census data to figure out various facts and figures. But all the public sees is the end result, so it doesn't matter if we understand it.
But it brings up a (potentially) interesting point: What if the statisticians are crooked? They can cook the data and only other statisticians can find them out. So in that case, it WOULD help to be a statistician. But notice 2 things:
1) Once the whistle is blown, the entire public benefits (including non-statisticians). So Joe Schmoe doesn't have to understand statistics, he just needs to know that there are statisticians who don't work for the gov't.
2) A correctly designed crypographic protocol is immune from fudging (even from the inside), so we shouldn't have to worry about this case.
In any case, I think you will find that the average layman only THINKS he knows how it works with paper. But start really questioning him ("how are absentee ballots counted", "what is the procedure for handling ties", "given that with a large volume of ballots our count may be off by several votes, how do we determine when we HAVE a tie") and you'll find that he isn't so sure. --
"Everyone can understand marking papers and counting them, while most can't understand cryptography and digital signatures."
1) Creating a new law is more than just marking and counting paper. Most people don't understand how a law gets created (even in general terms). Nor do they understand WHICH laws SHOULD BE created. Nor do they understand how a law can/should be enforced. Etc. I agree that everyone should be able to be involved, but I don't agree that this shouldn't require any education.
2) Why do you have to understand cryptography in order to digitally sign things? I don't understand electromagnetic theory but I am able to turn my lamp on. A good implementation will be only a little more difficult to use than clicking on the "digitally sign" button.
3) In any case, if the way to get things done involves understanding cryptography, how long do you think it will take people who want things done to learn cryptography? --
"Your definition seems to indicate that just because someone views something one way, it means that it really is that way."
No, it doesn't.
My definition of hypocrisy makes reference to two things: beliefs and actions. The definition is: when actions and beliefs are not consistent. Notice that no reference is made to "reality".
Your definition is a trio of ideas: belief, actions and "truth". The definition (appears to be): hypocrisy is if your beliefs are TRUE but your actions don't follow them. Apparently you are NOT a hypocrite if you fail to follow your false beliefs.
Your definition is not only wrong (try to find a dictionary entry that makes reference to something besides belief and action) but counterintuitive. For instance, consider someone who professes to believe in God but also murders people. His belief in God is false (because God doesn't exist) but I think everyone would agree that he IS a hypocrite. (If you happen to believe that God exists, we'll have to change this example).
Furthermore, because your definition requires that objective reality be known (for instance, does God exist or are blacks subhuman) it's pretty useless in real life application where we don't know what reality is. --
"...unable to either admit when you are wrong or unable to realize you are wrong."
And I think the same about you. But wait, it gets better. Clearly we both believe it is OK to insult an idiotic asshole (we've both done it): Which one of us is a hypocrite (insulting someone who is not an asshole)? If we follow your ridiculous definition, it's whoever is "really" the asshole. As if that could be determined somehow or is even TRUE in some objective sense. --
The/. summary talks about "killing file-sharing" but the article is about bandwidth allocation. This are so different that either the/. link is wrong or the editors just got trolled big time. --
"You argue that it is not hypocritical to illegally distribute music but support enforcing the GPL. You say this is because the law regarding copyright of music is wrong. Yet you give no proof to back up this statement. Without such proof, your entire argument is baseless and worthless."
False. Try this analogy: Joe Slaver thinks that human beings deserve the utmost respect. He also believes that blacks are subhuman. Is Joe hypocritcal when he beats his slaves? No, because he believes blacks are subhuman and thus don't deserve respect. Does Joe have to PROVE that blacks are subhuman in order to demonstrate he is a non-hypocrite? No, it enough that he genuinely hold that belief.
Same deal here: Being a hypocrite is acting in a way that is inconsistent with your beliefs. Both my copyright enfringement AND my GPL enforcement are consistent with my beliefs. Therefore I am not a hypocrite. --
"No, the law should be not-respected because it is WRONG.
Opinion."
Yes, AND...? The original claim was "GPL enforcers are hypocritical". I've demonstrated that that is not a necessary conclusion. One of my premises is an opinion. So what?
"I don't see the connection at all."
I guess I'll just have to give up then--I've said this so many different ways it's just getting ridiculous. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE USES THE GPL AS A LEGAL TOOL, DOESN'T MEAN THAT PERSON AGREES WITH THE SYSTEM THAT ENFORCES IT. Reponses claiming that this is unclear will be ignored as trolls. --
Let's leave aside the confusion of who is using what fallacy and get to the point.
"1. The law shouldn't be respected because it can't protect against illegal use of information..."
No, the law should be not-respected because it is WRONG. Plus, as an added bonus, it is unenforceable.
"2. The law regarding the GPL should be respected by others apparently since it supports your beliefs."
How many times can I say this? NO! The law regarding the GPL should NOT be respected at all for anyone. But since it IS being respected for SOME COMPANIES (e.g. Microsoft, etc) they it should be respected for ALL.
Example: Have you ever heard of "pollution futures"? They are permits to allow a company a certain finite amount of uncleaned (for instance) air pollution. So if Company A emits 10,000 tons of pollutants every year and can't make themselves any cleaner than that any time soon, they buy 10,000 1 ton permits.
The great thing about this system is that environmentalists can buy up a bunch of those permits to keep the companies from getting them (there are only a limited number of permits per year). Are the environmentalists being hypocritical when the purchase a permit that allows them to pollute? No, they are subverting the system by turning it against itself. --
"It's a fundamental argument of scarcity: there is a limited amount of skill & talent in the world to produce good music/books/software, so it should be governed by economic means.
You are confusing the creator with the creation. Yes, there is a limited amount of skill and talent--that's why I don't say "programmING should be free". But what with digital copying there is no limit to the number of copies of a creation that can be made.
So from an economic point of view what do we have? Human skill/talent is scarce, therefore we need to charge/pay for it. But the output itself is not scarce and so we needn't charge/pay for it. That's exactly what I've been saying.
Sitenote: The only hitch is: How do we pay for the humans if we don't charge for the output? That has been discussed elsewhere so I won't repeat it here. --
"On the other hand, becoming angry because a law is being broken..."
But, you see, that's not why I'm angry. I'm angry because someone is trying to make free software non-free. Luckily I'm "working within the system" and I can zap them with their own stupid laws.
"This seems to sum up the intellectual defense of every would-be Napster defender."
What is this? An argument or a compliment?
"While you're at it come download my extensive collection of OCR scanned books. Remember, there's nothing wrong since it's just information."
What's the URL?
You seem to think are leading me down a slippery slope to total chaos. From my point of view you're just repeating the obvious.
"This has got to be the most ignorant statement I've heard all day. It's still early, though."
Good, then you'll still have some energy to come up with some actual rebuttals rather than non-sequitors and ad hominems. --
"I find it amusing that many of the same people who try to justify Napster get all up in arms over the idea that the GPL might not get held up."
Yes, you are very clever (and repetitive, I've seen this post a number of times). Now let's apply some logic.
1) Why do I "justify Napster"? Because I believe that data should be free. And even if it shouldn't, it's too late now. If you distribute electrons AT ALL, they WILL be copied. You might as well change your business model to accomodate that.
2) Why do I "get all up in arms over the idea that the GPL might not get held up"? Because I believe that data should be free. And even if it shouldn't, it's too late now. If you distribute electrons AT ALL, they WILL be copied. You might as well change your business model to accomodate that.
Hey! Whaddya know, those reasons are identical. So I'm not hypocritical. How's that possible?
Because the only reason I try to enforce the GPL is to obtain my stated goals of software freedom. Currently the only way to do this is via licensing. But if licensing were to go away, I would find another way (or the project would become moot).
You see, music copyrights are about money and control. The GPL is about neither of these. --
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow I missed this the first (and second and third and fourth) time around: The board goes in a PCI slot. So I can offload processing from my CPU to these things. Weird.
--
"...they can run in Intel machines."
I'll be the first to admit: When it comes to hardware, I have only the vaguest idea what I'm talking about. But I don't understand this line. I went to the website, which was even less clear.
These things are MBs, right? That take PowerPCs? So what does it mean that they "run in Intel machines"? And "Intel machine" is presumably something with a chip from Intel. Does this mean that I can have a computer with two MBs? Or that I can put Intel chips on this MB? Or what?
--
"This is inherently undemocratic."
No it isn't. Hey look! We can both make unsubstantiated claims!
"Do you really, really think that the man in the street, who is subjected to law enforcement day in and day out, has no reasonable idea of how laws can, are, and should be enforced?"
Yes. Most people have never read a law, attended a public meeting OR been arrested. All they know is what they read in Perry Mason and see on Law & Order. I'm not saying they are stupid--I'm the same way. Are YOU saying that literally anyone could be picked up off the street given no education whatsoever and put into Congress and they would do a good job?
"It matters mightily if the public understands or not a census."
Yes, it DOES matter if "the public" understands the census (and the voting mechanisms). However, is it necessary that the ENTIRE public have that understanding? We wouldn't get anywhere if EVERY SINGLE person needed to understand EVERY SINGLE public procedure.
"How do you know which of the statisticians is right if you're not one?"
I don't. But that's one of the risks I take. The risk is small since I know that if the 2nd statistician isn't being paid by the gov't I can trust him to some extent. And the payoff is big: I don't have to be a statistician AND a cryptographer AND a MBA AND a PhD AND...etc.
"The details of network transmission, cryptography, and database systems take much more to master."
This is just ridiculous. Are you under the impression that ballots are delivered by hand (on horseback) to the President who counts them personally? Ballots (everyone needs to know papermaking) go in a box (everyone needs to know carpentry), which is then shipped securely (everyone needs to know how to build a highway, fix a car and load a gun)...etc.
There are already people whose entire day-to-day job is managing the details of voting procedures. Is it your claim that every citizen needs to be trained for this job in order to vote?
--
"I recommend you pick up some CDs by Alan Lomaxbefore you ever fire off again with this "normal people can't think for themselves" argument."
/. summary?
*I* recommend you re-read my post before accusing me of something I am innocent of. I didn't say "normal people can't think". I said "most people don't know". There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity.
"But I wasn't talking about creating laws, but about voting."
Yes, voting about creating laws. Or did you also not read the
"It involves making sure there are no duplicate votes, making sure no votes are lost, and counting the votes."
This is all handled "transparently". Joe Blow has no hand in ensuring non-duplicity, etc.
"When this is done with conventional means, everyone can understand how it works; when it is done electronically, only a technological elite can understand how it works."
What conceivable advantage could I have over Joe Schmoe if I understand the mathematics of a process that neither of us participates in? Example: The census. There are obscure and arcane (to a layman) statistical techniques that get applied to census data to figure out various facts and figures. But all the public sees is the end result, so it doesn't matter if we understand it.
But it brings up a (potentially) interesting point: What if the statisticians are crooked? They can cook the data and only other statisticians can find them out. So in that case, it WOULD help to be a statistician. But notice 2 things:
1) Once the whistle is blown, the entire public benefits (including non-statisticians). So Joe Schmoe doesn't have to understand statistics, he just needs to know that there are statisticians who don't work for the gov't.
2) A correctly designed crypographic protocol is immune from fudging (even from the inside), so we shouldn't have to worry about this case.
In any case, I think you will find that the average layman only THINKS he knows how it works with paper. But start really questioning him ("how are absentee ballots counted", "what is the procedure for handling ties", "given that with a large volume of ballots our count may be off by several votes, how do we determine when we HAVE a tie") and you'll find that he isn't so sure.
--
"Everyone can understand marking papers and counting them, while most can't understand cryptography and digital signatures."
1) Creating a new law is more than just marking and counting paper. Most people don't understand how a law gets created (even in general terms). Nor do they understand WHICH laws SHOULD BE created. Nor do they understand how a law can/should be enforced. Etc. I agree that everyone should be able to be involved, but I don't agree that this shouldn't require any education.
2) Why do you have to understand cryptography in order to digitally sign things? I don't understand electromagnetic theory but I am able to turn my lamp on. A good implementation will be only a little more difficult to use than clicking on the "digitally sign" button.
3) In any case, if the way to get things done involves understanding cryptography, how long do you think it will take people who want things done to learn cryptography?
--
There already IS a law that telemarketers are supposed to have a "don't-call" list.
--
Either you are a troll OR a 5th grader. If you are neither, I marvel at how you are able to use the Internet by yourself.
--
"Your definition seems to indicate that just because someone views something one way, it means that it really is that way."
No, it doesn't.
My definition of hypocrisy makes reference to two things: beliefs and actions. The definition is: when actions and beliefs are not consistent. Notice that no reference is made to "reality".
Your definition is a trio of ideas: belief, actions and "truth". The definition (appears to be): hypocrisy is if your beliefs are TRUE but your actions don't follow them. Apparently you are NOT a hypocrite if you fail to follow your false beliefs.
Your definition is not only wrong (try to find a dictionary entry that makes reference to something besides belief and action) but counterintuitive. For instance, consider someone who professes to believe in God but also murders people. His belief in God is false (because God doesn't exist) but I think everyone would agree that he IS a hypocrite. (If you happen to believe that God exists, we'll have to change this example).
Furthermore, because your definition requires that objective reality be known (for instance, does God exist or are blacks subhuman) it's pretty useless in real life application where we don't know what reality is.
--
"...unable to either admit when you are wrong or unable to realize you are wrong."
And I think the same about you. But wait, it gets better. Clearly we both believe it is OK to insult an idiotic asshole (we've both done it): Which one of us is a hypocrite (insulting someone who is not an asshole)? If we follow your ridiculous definition, it's whoever is "really" the asshole. As if that could be determined somehow or is even TRUE in some objective sense.
--
No, it means I now recognize that you are either a troll or 5th grader. Either way, pretty funny.
--
OK, I admit it. You had me going there for a minute. Good job.
--
The /. summary talks about "killing file-sharing" but the article is about bandwidth allocation. This are so different that either the /. link is wrong or the editors just got trolled big time.
--
From dictionary.com:
hypocrisy (h-pkr-s)
n., pl. hypocrisies.
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2.An act or instance of such falseness.
That doesn't sound like your definition. Can you provide an alternate reference?
--
"You argue that it is not hypocritical to illegally distribute music but support enforcing the GPL. You say this is because the law regarding copyright of music is wrong. Yet you give no proof to back up this statement. Without such proof, your entire argument is baseless and worthless."
False. Try this analogy: Joe Slaver thinks that human beings deserve the utmost respect. He also believes that blacks are subhuman. Is Joe hypocritcal when he beats his slaves? No, because he believes blacks are subhuman and thus don't deserve respect. Does Joe have to PROVE that blacks are subhuman in order to demonstrate he is a non-hypocrite? No, it enough that he genuinely hold that belief.
Same deal here: Being a hypocrite is acting in a way that is inconsistent with your beliefs. Both my copyright enfringement AND my GPL enforcement are consistent with my beliefs. Therefore I am not a hypocrite.
--
"No, the law should be not-respected because it is WRONG.
Opinion."
Yes, AND...? The original claim was "GPL enforcers are hypocritical". I've demonstrated that that is not a necessary conclusion. One of my premises is an opinion. So what?
"I don't see the connection at all."
I guess I'll just have to give up then--I've said this so many different ways it's just getting ridiculous. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE USES THE GPL AS A LEGAL TOOL, DOESN'T MEAN THAT PERSON AGREES WITH THE SYSTEM THAT ENFORCES IT. Reponses claiming that this is unclear will be ignored as trolls.
--
That's because that's not the topic of conversation. The topic is whether GPL enforcers are hypocritical.
--
Let's leave aside the confusion of who is using what fallacy and get to the point.
"1. The law shouldn't be respected because it can't protect against illegal use of information..."
No, the law should be not-respected because it is WRONG. Plus, as an added bonus, it is unenforceable.
"2. The law regarding the GPL should be respected by others apparently since it supports your beliefs."
How many times can I say this? NO! The law regarding the GPL should NOT be respected at all for anyone. But since it IS being respected for SOME COMPANIES (e.g. Microsoft, etc) they it should be respected for ALL.
Example: Have you ever heard of "pollution futures"? They are permits to allow a company a certain finite amount of uncleaned (for instance) air pollution. So if Company A emits 10,000 tons of pollutants every year and can't make themselves any cleaner than that any time soon, they buy 10,000 1 ton permits.
The great thing about this system is that environmentalists can buy up a bunch of those permits to keep the companies from getting them (there are only a limited number of permits per year). Are the environmentalists being hypocritical when the purchase a permit that allows them to pollute? No, they are subverting the system by turning it against itself.
--
Refer to the post I was responding to.
--
Non-sequitur: "This has got to be the most ignorant statement I've heard all day. It's still early, though."
This literally "does not follow" from anything. It is irrelevant even if true.
My "argument" was not ad hominem because it's not an argument. I was pointing out the flaws in your post which is inherently ad hominem.
--
"It's a fundamental argument of scarcity: there is a limited amount of skill & talent in the world to produce good music/books/software, so it should be governed by economic means.
You are confusing the creator with the creation. Yes, there is a limited amount of skill and talent--that's why I don't say "programmING should be free". But what with digital copying there is no limit to the number of copies of a creation that can be made.
So from an economic point of view what do we have? Human skill/talent is scarce, therefore we need to charge/pay for it. But the output itself is not scarce and so we needn't charge/pay for it. That's exactly what I've been saying.
Sitenote: The only hitch is: How do we pay for the humans if we don't charge for the output? That has been discussed elsewhere so I won't repeat it here.
--
"On the other hand, becoming angry because a law is being broken..."
But, you see, that's not why I'm angry. I'm angry because someone is trying to make free software non-free. Luckily I'm "working within the system" and I can zap them with their own stupid laws.
"This seems to sum up the intellectual defense of every would-be Napster defender."
What is this? An argument or a compliment?
"While you're at it come download my extensive collection of OCR scanned books. Remember, there's nothing wrong since it's just information."
What's the URL?
You seem to think are leading me down a slippery slope to total chaos. From my point of view you're just repeating the obvious.
"This has got to be the most ignorant statement I've heard all day. It's still early, though."
Good, then you'll still have some energy to come up with some actual rebuttals rather than non-sequitors and ad hominems.
--
"1) If Microsoft fucks us all by jacking our code, they're being evil.
2. If you fuck Lars by jacking his work, you're still cool, "cuz data wants to be free.
In short, you suck, and your argument is incoherant."
One of your 3 points is that I "suck" and you call MY argument incoherent?
Anyway, your #1 is misstated. How about these:
1) If Microsoft (ab)uses existing law to curtail freedoms, they're being evil.
2) If I break those same (ab)used laws in some other activity (say, "stealing from" Lars), I'm fighting evil.
Now, you may not agree with these positions. But at least you can see they aren't contradictory, can't you?
--
"I find it amusing that many of the same people who try to justify Napster get all up in arms over the idea that the GPL might not get held up."
Yes, you are very clever (and repetitive, I've seen this post a number of times). Now let's apply some logic.
1) Why do I "justify Napster"? Because I believe that data should be free. And even if it shouldn't, it's too late now. If you distribute electrons AT ALL, they WILL be copied. You might as well change your business model to accomodate that.
2) Why do I "get all up in arms over the idea that the GPL might not get held up"? Because I believe that data should be free. And even if it shouldn't, it's too late now. If you distribute electrons AT ALL, they WILL be copied. You might as well change your business model to accomodate that.
Hey! Whaddya know, those reasons are identical. So I'm not hypocritical. How's that possible?
Because the only reason I try to enforce the GPL is to obtain my stated goals of software freedom. Currently the only way to do this is via licensing. But if licensing were to go away, I would find another way (or the project would become moot).
You see, music copyrights are about money and control. The GPL is about neither of these.
--
New from Broccoli Entertainment: "Pierce Brosnan IS Agent ESR with the License to Advise!"
--
"Jokes treat people with no sense of humor as damage and smacks them across the face."
--