I don't think you should use Emacs, because I don't think you would be well served by Emacs, nor are you likely to ever be able to speak with insight to the meaning, value, or purposes of using Emacs, because frankly, you just don't get it.
This is a sad tautology.
How does one achieve enlightenment without struggling to escape the darkness?
Send them to YouTube for a couple of Obama campaign videos, instead.
Here is a transcript: Me: Every release since 19.34b has suffered badly from bloat and other crud. Emacs: What would happen if 19 34b has suffered badly from bloat and other crud? Me: MULE was probably the worst offender. Emacs: Why do you say mule was probably the worst offender? Me: Such a fat jackass, that MULE. Emacs: Can you elaborate on that?
What is fascinating as you view the news about world leaders is how they are given good/bad tags, and the fact that they are a mixed bag is somehow neglected.
Putin is "Person of the Year", and Bush has his name turned into Godwin's Law violations.
Fa(ir|re) is what you pay to ride a bus, I suppose.
I'm drawing a parallel between the effect of movable type upon literacy, which was subsequently no longer a skill confined to a few based upon scarcity of printed works, and the advocacy of source code availability resulting from the GPL, and making the prediction that the GPL will have similar long-term effects.
You can certainly attack the comparison on technical grounds.
It's like a car, see...
So you're saying the charity is just like some very expensive prostitution?
One think I learned during the Clinton years was how to maintain a studied disinterest in the relationships of others.
RMS is relatively a saint.
Those that want to look past Castro's brutality and focus on "stickin' it to the man" are in very poor taste.
That kind of sloppy thinking abets the Castros of the world in their efforts to suppress political freedom and practice brutality.
The media are a bunch of sycophants for doing this, and it's a shame that the more technically sharp on/. would play along.
My (wildly paraphrased) understanding is that his philosophical basis treats software like chess pieces: everything stays on the table, in plain view.
Less cheekily, I'd say he's after building a community that has a homogeneous view. Kinda like the Amish, with source code instead of plows.
The point about tapering off that I'm making is this: it's one thing to state your views in a positive way, and quite another to anathematize others who disagree.
Stallman's desire for community is simply one among many possible motives for code.
He's never (that I am aware) published anything offering some transcendental basis for making the GPL "more equal" than other licensing regimes.
IOW, I can get at the GPL from a common-sense vantage, but can't see how other possibilities are somehow "unethical".
Gates/Castro would also be unfortunate. Setting aside software for a moment, it's peevish to deny that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has improved the world.
He's got a very clear course plotted for his ideas.
He offers precise feedback on where he disagrees with others.
He does get shrill and baffling when he ventures into the abstract, and calls others "unethical".
For me to follow his train of thought there, he would have to publish a complete philosophical model.
But so what? His flamewars have contributed far less carbon to the atmosphere than those of other Nobel laureates.
I've had some extended discussions with him over email.
Hence the fact that I taper off from agreement when the discussion gets abstract: his philosophical basis leaves me unmoved.
However, when you consider the impact of the GPL, GCC, and the FSF world-wide, and into the future, the Nobel Peace Prize makes sense, even if the fellow himself has some cantankerous moments.
In any case, I submit that the man's overall historical impact may rank with Gutenberg, and for the same reason: taking information out of the hands of the elite and offering a level playing field. Gutenberg did it for literacy, Stallman for programming.
For certain values of "need".
For example, to make picture-mode work for photographs, you'd need a canvas about the size of an aircraft carrier flight deck to express the pixels as text, more RAM than Dodge's truck division to hold the image, and a great deal of patience to scroll it on a typical LCD.
Really, it's OK to pick the proper tool for the job.
Disagree. He championed the important idea that sharing source code is a Good Thing, and did it with a degree of consistency over time that is remarkable.
Yeah, I lose track of his ideas after a point (ethics), but I'm a firm believer in "credit where due".
Certainly more deserving of something like a Nobel Peace Prize than some of the nitwits that have besmirched the concept in recent history.
Anyone know how to nominate someone for http://www.medaloffreedom.com/
There is, like, this substantial difference between hardware and software: the "hard" in hardware refers to the fact that it is substance, whereas the software is pure information.
the US model would work much better than the UN model if scaled up to a global level
Well, the US model has been around 200+ years, but the Europeans somehow missed the part about the bicameral legislature, and the EU Constitution died in referenda over there.
So they've repackaged it as the Lisbon Treaty, because the lumpen proletariat isn't, you know, reliable.
Long way to go before any US ideas are replicated worldwide in countries where we didn't explicitly help write the constitution, but most would agree that our adventurism wad is fairly shot for a few decades.
It doesn't seem to me like a push towards world government is a concentration of power across the DIME, as you put it. Multiple levels of government can coexist independently, especially in the American-style federation. And, those levels can continue to function when they are in opposition (such as California's medical marijuana laws in defiance of Federal drug laws).
I'm contending it's a slow push in this thread, decades, even into centuries off.
Multiple levels tend to compress. Consider how weak these United States have been since the Civil War.
I agree that an absolutely powerful world government would be absolutely corrupt -- but I don't think anyone is suggesting that solution (Islamists aside). The UN, for example, has very little power. When governments don't agree with UN resolutions they don't have to follow them (Iraq until 2003, Iran now, North Korea, Sudan, etc). I would argue that the lack of power at a world level causes war.
The UN lacks power, yet people keep wanting to insist that it take on more. Treaties such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_sea_convention are, in fact, suggesting there be regulatory organs above countries with the power to exact fines--a step towards taxation.
The failure of the UN is in its structure. It is an oligarchy, not a federation, republic, or democracy. The 5 WWII Allies hold the rest of the world hostage for their own interests. Personal interests are a threat to liberty.
The UN is a little coffee shop where countries can scream and keep an eye on each other. Some parts of it are effective.
On the other hand, the American federation works extremely well and has withstood the test of time and scale better than any comparable system. I see no reason why, if a country wants to influence American policy, it shouldn't join the federation. They trade a measure (not all) of sovereignty for the right to affect the overall system. Change from within.
Globalization? You mean economically, right?
Really though, the Europeans see themselves as the center of history. They would no sooner join the US federation than ratify the EU's constitution. Submitting to any higher level of government would invalidate the arrogant attitude of global relevance. Belgium is no more relevant on the world scene than California. But, to admit that would be admitting the end of Charlemagne.
One final note, Mexico would probably be much better off today had they too become part of the union 150 years ago. California and Texas are doing pretty well, they have a massive say in American politics (Bush is from Texas, after all), and the Mexicans who live in the US, on average, enjoy a higher standard of living than those still in Mexico.
Mexico is an oligarchy, AFAIK. If you're holding power, why give it up?
Slashdot Mirror
...NetBeans, but then I've had vi or vb too many cups of absinthe.
How does one achieve enlightenment without struggling to escape the darkness?
Send them to YouTube for a couple of Obama campaign videos, instead.
Here is a transcript:
Me: Every release since 19.34b has suffered badly from bloat and other crud.
Emacs: What would happen if 19 34b has suffered badly from bloat and other crud?
Me: MULE was probably the worst offender.
Emacs: Why do you say mule was probably the worst offender?
Me: Such a fat jackass, that MULE.
Emacs: Can you elaborate on that?
This is truly funny; you shouldn't have gone anonymous.
The 0th Commandment: "Don't get caught taking yourself too seriously".
Must be a Ford Perfect.
What is fascinating as you view the news about world leaders is how they are given good/bad tags, and the fact that they are a mixed bag is somehow neglected.
Putin is "Person of the Year", and Bush has his name turned into Godwin's Law violations.
Fa(ir|re) is what you pay to ride a bus, I suppose.
I'm drawing a parallel between the effect of movable type upon literacy, which was subsequently no longer a skill confined to a few based upon scarcity of printed works, and the advocacy of source code availability resulting from the GPL, and making the prediction that the GPL will have similar long-term effects.
You can certainly attack the comparison on technical grounds.
It's like a car, see...
So you're saying the charity is just like some very expensive prostitution?
One think I learned during the Clinton years was how to maintain a studied disinterest in the relationships of others.
RMS is relatively a saint. /. would play along.
Those that want to look past Castro's brutality and focus on "stickin' it to the man" are in very poor taste.
That kind of sloppy thinking abets the Castros of the world in their efforts to suppress political freedom and practice brutality.
The media are a bunch of sycophants for doing this, and it's a shame that the more technically sharp on
My (wildly paraphrased) understanding is that his philosophical basis treats software like chess pieces: everything stays on the table, in plain view.
Less cheekily, I'd say he's after building a community that has a homogeneous view. Kinda like the Amish, with source code instead of plows.
The point about tapering off that I'm making is this: it's one thing to state your views in a positive way, and quite another to anathematize others who disagree.
Stallman's desire for community is simply one among many possible motives for code.
He's never (that I am aware) published anything offering some transcendental basis for making the GPL "more equal" than other licensing regimes.
IOW, I can get at the GPL from a common-sense vantage, but can't see how other possibilities are somehow "unethical".
Emacs hosting HURD hosting Linux hosting Windows: for better domination.
AFAIK, yes. It's all POSIX. You'd likely have to start with a fresh install.
Gates/Castro would also be unfortunate. Setting aside software for a moment, it's peevish to deny that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has improved the world.
He's got a very clear course plotted for his ideas.
He offers precise feedback on where he disagrees with others.
He does get shrill and baffling when he ventures into the abstract, and calls others "unethical".
For me to follow his train of thought there, he would have to publish a complete philosophical model.
But so what? His flamewars have contributed far less carbon to the atmosphere than those of other Nobel laureates.
You can actually use it right now:
http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/
Castro has been a murderous dictator for decades, and it's rather unfortunate that you'd choose to compare Stallman to him.
I've had some extended discussions with him over email.
Hence the fact that I taper off from agreement when the discussion gets abstract: his philosophical basis leaves me unmoved.
However, when you consider the impact of the GPL, GCC, and the FSF world-wide, and into the future, the Nobel Peace Prize makes sense, even if the fellow himself has some cantankerous moments.
In any case, I submit that the man's overall historical impact may rank with Gutenberg, and for the same reason: taking information out of the hands of the elite and offering a level playing field. Gutenberg did it for literacy, Stallman for programming.
For example, to make picture-mode work for photographs, you'd need a canvas about the size of an aircraft carrier flight deck to express the pixels as text, more RAM than Dodge's truck division to hold the image, and a great deal of patience to scroll it on a typical LCD.
Really, it's OK to pick the proper tool for the job.
Disagree. He championed the important idea that sharing source code is a Good Thing, and did it with a degree of consistency over time that is remarkable.
Yeah, I lose track of his ideas after a point (ethics), but I'm a firm believer in "credit where due".
Certainly more deserving of something like a Nobel Peace Prize than some of the nitwits that have besmirched the concept in recent history.
Anyone know how to nominate someone for http://www.medaloffreedom.com/
(asdf-what-is-that-supposed-to-mean)
(asdf-just-because-the-code-is-all-in-one-namespace-p
asdf-does-not-make-it-ineffective))
"It's not dead, it's just restin'."
So they've repackaged it as the Lisbon Treaty, because the lumpen proletariat isn't, you know, reliable.
Long way to go before any US ideas are replicated worldwide in countries where we didn't explicitly help write the constitution, but most would agree that our adventurism wad is fairly shot for a few decades.
Multiple levels tend to compress. Consider how weak these United States have been since the Civil War. The UN lacks power, yet people keep wanting to insist that it take on more. Treaties such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_sea_convention are, in fact, suggesting there be regulatory organs above countries with the power to exact fines--a step towards taxation. The UN is a little coffee shop where countries can scream and keep an eye on each other. Some parts of it are effective. Globalization? You mean economically, right? Which is why the EUrocrats slipped their people a mickey in Lisbon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301539.html Mexico is an oligarchy, AFAIK. If you're holding power, why give it up?