Perhaps I'll stop with my anti-Republicanism when they stop actively fighting my self interest.
If they want me to stop hating them perhaps they should stop fighting hate crimes legislation and preventing me from having all of my rights.
Meaning that your rights are better the somebody else's because you're in some "special" group. So if you get assaulted your assailant should be punished more than if you assault them. Yea, I get your issue with them, there.
No, the rights are the same, but not all assaults are the same. There are social issues - assaults that are based on enduring hatred of some traditionally weaker parts of society deserve special attention. Intent of an attack is a big part of consideration in how justice systems work.
I may have a right not to be robbed when walking down the street, but there is a world of difference between someone robbing me because they need food, because they want new shoes, and because they hate me because of my race/sexual orientation. There are different societal failures in each and different levels of danger to society as a whole, and these should be considered in how the crime is understood.
It's the same goal really (protecting English), we're just in a different stage of the language shift in the US. At some point perhaps there will be laws to mandate bilingualism when enough of the US comes to prefer Español.
If you accept that it is a valid thing for Quebec to promote and protect the French language, then the law makes a lot of sense. Just like mandating that restaurants provide both English and French on their menus, this helps prevent the English language from squeezing French out of usage.
I've never had a strong opinion on whether it is a valid thing or not, but perhaps Americans can understand it better by considering how threatened people feel by rapid growth of the Spanish language in the Americas, and efforts to prevent/slow that.
This is mostly a good thing. I should not be able to tell other people how they can use their computers. The kind of IP laws we have now are bad for freedom because they let the software author claim broad control over other people's use of software and information. The GPL creates a space which limits that.
The freedoms of society in general to be largely unencumbered are more important than the freedoms of authors to encumber.
That's true, and a lot of people don't take care of themselves. I think that encouragement by one's doctor is probably a better tack than trying to hit them in the pocketbook (well, that, and fixing some of the way big business influences health boards - did you hear about lobbyists for American sugar interests preventing health standards advocating less sugar intake in a healthy diet from being established?)
"works best" isn't always clear in hindsight, and some solutions are abusive to even try. If we decided to provide very little healthcare to anyone except the very wealthy, provided very few services of any kind to people, and invested very little in quality of life, we might have a very economically efficient government that would have saved enough to have an edge over other governments, but this would be neglect. Investment in quality of life is worthwhile, even if it demands some sacrifices in economic efficiency.
The compromises make more sense for other people - I don't want any information that I might lose or need to bring with me - I would prefer my health information be in a database that's backed-up and available to anyone in the medical profession that might need it. There are laws protecting against disclosure for these things.
I understand that others might feel differently, but I really don't care much about privacy. If someone else had HIV or were the victim of sexual assault, I wouldn't treat them much differently (and all the transgender thing would likely do is cause me to think of them as being of their genetic gender). I realise that not all of society is like this though...
I am quite aware of the history of Linux. I don't think it would've gotten started if the initial GNU userland had not been there.
It's hard to say what would've happened without RMS - it's possible that the lawsuits over the BSD NET/2 code would've gone on for longer if Linux had not been emerging and made said lawsuits pointless.
Sometimes a few people really can change things - if the founding fathers of the United States had been Christians rather than a smattering of deists and other things, our country would look rather different - likewise if Kerensky had had a stronger personality, Russia's end of Tsardom would've resulted in a different kind of government.
My worldview is close enough to his that I appreciate the freedoms he brings us. I understand that not everyone agrees, but I happen to like the world he helped carve out - I like that almost all the software on my computer is software that I can share with friends, software that I can get the sources to and modify, and software that has a license so permissive that I can use it with very little concern as to people with lawyers telling me to stop and asking for fines. I might not agree entirely with Stallman on the specifics of what those rights should be or the mechanisms he uses to enforce them, but in practice they almost always stay out of my way. There's a lot to like about Free/Open/NetBSD as well, although the GNU project has contributed to them too.
You don't have to agree - maybe these things arn't important to you and you don't mind the licenses attached to proprietary software. As for me, I respect RMS just as much as I do dmr - dmr and friends brought us Unix, and RMS improved it and gave it to everyone.
Well, if you understand that I don't care too much about my privacy, you see that the negatives arn't very big for me. I also have the benefit of working for a university - my insurance is at a flat rate, they can't refuse me coverage, etc. I realise this isn't the case for everyone though..
In the long run I hope we reform our insurance system so that the coverage concern you raise can be addressed. Thanks for bringing it up - I had forgotten about that concern.
States would probably do a worse job of it, and we'd probably end up with 50 systems that don't talk to each other (well, actually, more likely 14 done, 5 that never finished implementation, 20 stalled in legislature,...).
It's most useful if it's seamless across the nation so if for some reason I'm injured in another state my information will be available with no fuss.
I realise that a lot of geeks care a lot more about their privacy than I do, and this might be bad news for them, but personally I would love not to have those endless forms to fill out every time I see a new doctor, and it would be very handy if I had access to all my medical records through a web browser.
The difference between having this and not having this is akin to investments/banks that provide web interfaces and those that don't - I have one credit union account that's not on the web and it's kind of irritating that I have to physically show up (or wait for a statement) to check the balance on it. All the rest are conveniently available to me whenever I want to bother logging in.
Given what he's already given us, I think you greatly understate the credit he's due. Without Stallman, we would have compilers, operating systems, editors, etc, but it's quite likely we would not enjoy the freedoms we have with them today. Right now, I can install Linux on any number of systems I have as well as systems at work, including all sorts of software, without any legal worries about licensing - Stallman did not write most of it, but he made it possible and drew people's attention to its desirability. It is because he constantly screams "freedom" and enough people listen (or are bound by the GPL's viral nature to listen) that we have a viable way to run computers without people who would significantly restrict our usage of this software getting in the way.
Stallman isn't perfect - he is known for being hard to work with, he let GCC stagnate for several years because of an inappropriate development model, and the "GNU/Linux" terminology thing wasn't necessary. However, taken as a whole he's a very important and positive figure.
By forcing them to switch to public transit, we increase the economies of scale of public transit itself, as well as increasing the overall efficiencies of our transit system. Hopefully if things can keep tilting that way, PT will become good enough that private car ownership will become rare and unnecessary. That would be quite efficient.
It may be different for public transit, but car owners should always be third-class citizens in a city. People should not need to understand traffic to be a pedestrian, and in cases where pedestrians are not being intentionally obnoxious, they should be considered right in any conflict between private automobiles and themselves.
We have okay public transit in Pittsburgh. Take the bus. Otherwise, get used to the pecking order:
People on foot roughly equal with Public transit People on a bike or similar People on a lightly motorised device (segway, vesper) People in cars Idiots in SUVs or limos
The fact that many members of a minority would be affected by a policy is not a reason to reject the policy. So long as there is no actual and specific intent to harm the minority, it is not an anti-minority act.
I suspect power consumption has more to do with it (although given that battery cost is a significant cost of a system, reducing power may reduce cost too)
We hold that culture is something that people have and will spontaneously create of their own will, regardless of incentive, and that permitting people to own songs and other ideas is hostile to culture. You can claim to own it, and we will, to the extent we can get away with it, ignore your claim, and inspire others, to the limit of our ability, to do the same.
For other things, there can be markets, whether they are capitalist markets or socialist ones. For the physical embodiments of art that properly have scarcity, that can be bought and sold as well - I would not go into the Louvre to take the Mona Lisa, although if I can get a copy of the data, I will happily spread it to others if I have it and they want it. If I hear a tune and I can either sing it/play with my instrument or transfer data of others doing the same to people who want it, I will do so when I don't think I'm likely to be caught to the extent that it's illegal.
I realise that production of these things can be considered scarce, but it's not the same kind of scarcity as physical things - when the marginal cost of distribution is near zero, and the liklihood of those who would shackle culture and punish those practicing it managing to do so is low, we'll share.
3 strikes is more appropriate for a cultural struggle, which is what this is. Many of us firmly believe that intellectual property law is invalid, and that there is no duty to society to follow it. Both we and industries built on IP are trying to convince the public towards our perspective, and the "3 strikes" law gives some limited protection to people who have only heard our side and don't know the legal risks.
In the end, what we hope is that instead of simply "learning and accepting" the concept of intellectual property, people will just be more careful not to get caught, and that eventually we can remove copyright and patent protections entirely from our legal system. In the meantime, it's nice not to have people have their lives ruined in this cultural/legal struggle.
By analogy to other struggles over notions of human dignity and autonomy, if people who were part of the Underground Railroad had a 3-strikes rule, it would've afforded them some protection without requiring a complete victory.. yet.
And it gets ever harder to tell people who are crazy from those who are using modern technology...
Talking to themself? They might be crazy... or maybe they have a really well-hidden cellphone. Weird facial expressions that don't appear to relate to the environment? Crazy... or thinking about philosophy, or one of these.
Now we need to get close enough to see if they smell funny... and some geeks smell funny anyhow.:(
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I'll stop with my anti-Republicanism when they stop actively fighting my self interest.
If they want me to stop hating them perhaps they should stop fighting hate crimes legislation and preventing me from having all of my rights.
Meaning that your rights are better the somebody else's because you're in some "special" group. So if you get assaulted your assailant should be punished more than if you assault them. Yea, I get your issue with them, there.
No, the rights are the same, but not all assaults are the same. There are social issues - assaults that are based on enduring hatred of some traditionally weaker parts of society deserve special attention. Intent of an attack is a big part of consideration in how justice systems work.
I may have a right not to be robbed when walking down the street, but there is a world of difference between someone robbing me because they need food, because they want new shoes, and because they hate me because of my race/sexual orientation. There are different societal failures in each and different levels of danger to society as a whole, and these should be considered in how the crime is understood.
It's the same goal really (protecting English), we're just in a different stage of the language shift in the US. At some point perhaps there will be laws to mandate bilingualism when enough of the US comes to prefer Español.
If you accept that it is a valid thing for Quebec to promote and protect the French language, then the law makes a lot of sense. Just like mandating that restaurants provide both English and French on their menus, this helps prevent the English language from squeezing French out of usage.
I've never had a strong opinion on whether it is a valid thing or not, but perhaps Americans can understand it better by considering how threatened people feel by rapid growth of the Spanish language in the Americas, and efforts to prevent/slow that.
I am not 100% sure on this, but don't churches and other nonprofits have to avoid explicit endorsements too to retain their nonprofit status?
I still don't know what he was trying to say. I stopped reading after the second sentence or two because it was just unbearable and hurt my eyes.
Lowerer UIDs concurer ... oh, wait..
This is mostly a good thing. I should not be able to tell other people how they can use their computers. The kind of IP laws we have now are bad for freedom because they let the software author claim broad control over other people's use of software and information. The GPL creates a space which limits that.
The freedoms of society in general to be largely unencumbered are more important than the freedoms of authors to encumber.
That's true, and a lot of people don't take care of themselves. I think that encouragement by one's doctor is probably a better tack than trying to hit them in the pocketbook (well, that, and fixing some of the way big business influences health boards - did you hear about lobbyists for American sugar interests preventing health standards advocating less sugar intake in a healthy diet from being established?)
"works best" isn't always clear in hindsight, and some solutions are abusive to even try. If we decided to provide very little healthcare to anyone except the very wealthy, provided very few services of any kind to people, and invested very little in quality of life, we might have a very economically efficient government that would have saved enough to have an edge over other governments, but this would be neglect. Investment in quality of life is worthwhile, even if it demands some sacrifices in economic efficiency.
You will not be young and healthy forever.
The compromises make more sense for other people - I don't want any information that I might lose or need to bring with me - I would prefer my health information be in a database that's backed-up and available to anyone in the medical profession that might need it. There are laws protecting against disclosure for these things.
I understand that others might feel differently, but I really don't care much about privacy. If someone else had HIV or were the victim of sexual assault, I wouldn't treat them much differently (and all the transgender thing would likely do is cause me to think of them as being of their genetic gender). I realise that not all of society is like this though...
How can you know before the system rolls out what the answer is going to be?
I am quite aware of the history of Linux. I don't think it would've gotten started if the initial GNU userland had not been there.
It's hard to say what would've happened without RMS - it's possible that the lawsuits over the BSD NET/2 code would've gone on for longer if Linux had not been emerging and made said lawsuits pointless.
Sometimes a few people really can change things - if the founding fathers of the United States had been Christians rather than a smattering of deists and other things, our country would look rather different - likewise if Kerensky had had a stronger personality, Russia's end of Tsardom would've resulted in a different kind of government.
My worldview is close enough to his that I appreciate the freedoms he brings us. I understand that not everyone agrees, but I happen to like the world he helped carve out - I like that almost all the software on my computer is software that I can share with friends, software that I can get the sources to and modify, and software that has a license so permissive that I can use it with very little concern as to people with lawyers telling me to stop and asking for fines. I might not agree entirely with Stallman on the specifics of what those rights should be or the mechanisms he uses to enforce them, but in practice they almost always stay out of my way. There's a lot to like about Free/Open/NetBSD as well, although the GNU project has contributed to them too.
You don't have to agree - maybe these things arn't important to you and you don't mind the licenses attached to proprietary software. As for me, I respect RMS just as much as I do dmr - dmr and friends brought us Unix, and RMS improved it and gave it to everyone.
Well, if you understand that I don't care too much about my privacy, you see that the negatives arn't very big for me. I also have the benefit of working for a university - my insurance is at a flat rate, they can't refuse me coverage, etc. I realise this isn't the case for everyone though..
In the long run I hope we reform our insurance system so that the coverage concern you raise can be addressed. Thanks for bringing it up - I had forgotten about that concern.
States would probably do a worse job of it, and we'd probably end up with 50 systems that don't talk to each other (well, actually, more likely 14 done, 5 that never finished implementation, 20 stalled in legislature, ...).
It's most useful if it's seamless across the nation so if for some reason I'm injured in another state my information will be available with no fuss.
I realise that a lot of geeks care a lot more about their privacy than I do, and this might be bad news for them, but personally I would love not to have those endless forms to fill out every time I see a new doctor, and it would be very handy if I had access to all my medical records through a web browser.
The difference between having this and not having this is akin to investments/banks that provide web interfaces and those that don't - I have one credit union account that's not on the web and it's kind of irritating that I have to physically show up (or wait for a statement) to check the balance on it. All the rest are conveniently available to me whenever I want to bother logging in.
Given what he's already given us, I think you greatly understate the credit he's due. Without Stallman, we would have compilers, operating systems, editors, etc, but it's quite likely we would not enjoy the freedoms we have with them today. Right now, I can install Linux on any number of systems I have as well as systems at work, including all sorts of software, without any legal worries about licensing - Stallman did not write most of it, but he made it possible and drew people's attention to its desirability. It is because he constantly screams "freedom" and enough people listen (or are bound by the GPL's viral nature to listen) that we have a viable way to run computers without people who would significantly restrict our usage of this software getting in the way.
Stallman isn't perfect - he is known for being hard to work with, he let GCC stagnate for several years because of an inappropriate development model, and the "GNU/Linux" terminology thing wasn't necessary. However, taken as a whole he's a very important and positive figure.
By forcing them to switch to public transit, we increase the economies of scale of public transit itself, as well as increasing the overall efficiencies of our transit system. Hopefully if things can keep tilting that way, PT will become good enough that private car ownership will become rare and unnecessary. That would be quite efficient.
It may be different for public transit, but car owners should always be third-class citizens in a city. People should not need to understand traffic to be a pedestrian, and in cases where pedestrians are not being intentionally obnoxious, they should be considered right in any conflict between private automobiles and themselves.
We have okay public transit in Pittsburgh. Take the bus. Otherwise, get used to the pecking order:
People on foot roughly equal with Public transit
People on a bike or similar
People on a lightly motorised device (segway, vesper)
People in cars
Idiots in SUVs or limos
The fact that many members of a minority would be affected by a policy is not a reason to reject the policy. So long as there is no actual and specific intent to harm the minority, it is not an anti-minority act.
I suspect power consumption has more to do with it (although given that battery cost is a significant cost of a system, reducing power may reduce cost too)
We hold that culture is something that people have and will spontaneously create of their own will, regardless of incentive, and that permitting people to own songs and other ideas is hostile to culture. You can claim to own it, and we will, to the extent we can get away with it, ignore your claim, and inspire others, to the limit of our ability, to do the same.
For other things, there can be markets, whether they are capitalist markets or socialist ones. For the physical embodiments of art that properly have scarcity, that can be bought and sold as well - I would not go into the Louvre to take the Mona Lisa, although if I can get a copy of the data, I will happily spread it to others if I have it and they want it. If I hear a tune and I can either sing it/play with my instrument or transfer data of others doing the same to people who want it, I will do so when I don't think I'm likely to be caught to the extent that it's illegal.
I realise that production of these things can be considered scarce, but it's not the same kind of scarcity as physical things - when the marginal cost of distribution is near zero, and the liklihood of those who would shackle culture and punish those practicing it managing to do so is low, we'll share.
3 strikes is more appropriate for a cultural struggle, which is what this is. Many of us firmly believe that intellectual property law is invalid, and that there is no duty to society to follow it. Both we and industries built on IP are trying to convince the public towards our perspective, and the "3 strikes" law gives some limited protection to people who have only heard our side and don't know the legal risks.
In the end, what we hope is that instead of simply "learning and accepting" the concept of intellectual property, people will just be more careful not to get caught, and that eventually we can remove copyright and patent protections entirely from our legal system. In the meantime, it's nice not to have people have their lives ruined in this cultural/legal struggle.
By analogy to other struggles over notions of human dignity and autonomy, if people who were part of the Underground Railroad had a 3-strikes rule, it would've afforded them some protection without requiring a complete victory .. yet.
And it gets ever harder to tell people who are crazy from those who are using modern technology...
Talking to themself? They might be crazy... or maybe they have a really well-hidden cellphone. Weird facial expressions that don't appear to relate to the environment? Crazy... or thinking about philosophy, or one of these.
Now we need to get close enough to see if they smell funny ... and some geeks smell funny anyhow. :(