I think the quest for ever thinner phones and ever thinner batteries is to blame. I want thicker phones with longer life.
I also think a battery-only recall would have been cheaper, so there is a lot to be said for removable batteries too. I want user-replaceable batteries
I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I do know what I want.
And the rankings were wrong, and known to be wrong and adjusted by those with no knowledge of performance. And this was so layoffs could be called performance based termination.
No way do you make that argument in your post. Not even in your dreams:
The meaning of freedom (+1) Raenex 2 days ago The The Free Software Definition states as one of the "four essential freedoms": "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this." (bold mine)
Let's say I gave somebody a car out of charity, but I didn't give them the owner's manual. Are they now less free because they will have a harder time fixing the car than before I gave them the car? If I was compelled to give the person the owner's manual with the car, or not give the car at all, am I not less free?
My point is this. The Free Software Definition conflates freedom with capability, and does so at the cost of what freedom really means. It's nice for propaganda purposes, but it's Orwellian in nature.
It could be argued honestly that in the name of consumer protection we limit freedoms for the greater good, such as requiring a list of ingredients in packaged food. However, it would be dishonest to argue for such laws in the name of "freedom".
To be clear: in your post you didn't mention Sweden, or the pirate party, or escrow.
I didn't narrow your argument, you didn't even make that argument. Not even your car analogy mentioned that the manual would have to be given only after 5 years.
I suggest you repost you question based on the past I am replying to.
You seem to think that granting additional freedoms conditional on preserving them to others is a restriction merely because it is not unconditional, or because it is less that you hoped.
You are intent on arguing a strawman, probably because your argument falls apart otherwise. Again, I'm discussing the Free Software Definition irrespective of copyright law, whereas you are talking about the GPL in a state of copyright law.
If it is a strawman, you provided it. it shouldn't be this hard to find out what you are arguing.
You were actually discussing the conditional transference of a car that was your property.
I explicitly linked to the Free Software Definition in my first post. The discussion of the car analogy is in that context.
You certainly failed to make it clear what you were arguing, and your car analogy did not help.
Rubbish, copyright was being excercised to his detriment, not undermined
"The bullying of the copyright industry in Sweden inspired the launch of the first political party whose platform is to reduce copyright restrictions: the Pirate Party. Its platform includes the prohibition of Digital Restrictions Management, legalization of noncommercial sharing of published works, and shortening of copyright for commercial use to a five-year period. Five years after publication, any published work would go into the public domain.
I support these changes, in general; but the specific combination chosen by the Swedish Pirate Party backfires ironically in the special case of free software. I'm sure that they did not intend to hurt free software, but that's what would happen.
The GNU General Public License and other copyleft licenses use copyright law to defend freedom for every user. The GPL permits everyone to publish modified works, but only under the same license. Redistribution of the unmodified work must also preserve the license. And all redistributors must give users access to the software's source code."
In my remark about copyright working to his detriment, I thought you were talking about his original proposals behind the GPL and FSF based on the Xerox printer incident.
But certainly in your extract here, he is not arguing for any particular laws or losses of freedom, only stating the conditions required to preserve freedom for all people. He even states that he supports these changes in general. I don't know how that could lead you to argue that he is dishonest and in fact wanting less freedom!
I think then that you know what Stallman is talking about when he uses the term "freedom" but you are taking the hard way in accusing him of dishonesty when you seem to really mean that he is using the wrong words.
Words matter, and calling for restrictions under the guise of "freedom" is propaganda and dishonest.
Words matter, but you are the one who is using dishonest propaganda.
You seem to think that granting additional freedoms conditional on preserving them to others is a restriction merely because it is not unconditional, or because it is less that you hoped.
But you've had to resort to faulty analogies to make the argument because otherwise it could be dismissed as easily as I have just done: A conditional freedom is not a restriction, it is just a definition of the freedom.
Software is non-tangible and as a licensee you have no ownership rights, and only those rights granted by the licensor (author/owner). This point was not represented at all in your analogy.
It's immaterial. We're talking about whether source code must be provided (or "made available") when providing a binary. That's imposing an extra restriction that could equally be applied to tangible objects, as in the car example.
Nonsense. When providing the car, you are transferring ownership to your uncontested property.
When providing a binary based on someone else's source it is not your uncontested property. And without a license you have absolutely no rights to distribute that binary. The media may be your uncontested property but the binary is not.
The trouble with an analogy is that you have to prove your point with the analogy and then prove that the analogy applies. You get two arguments instead of one.
With software where the GPL applies, they are not the new owner, they are just a licensee.
I'm discussing in particular the Free Software Definition, of which the GPL is a particular license designed to enforce it. The GPL only draws its power because of copyrights on software. In a theoretical world without copyrights on software, and hence no licenses, the Free Software Definition is still a valid position statement. It would just label all software without corresponding source code as "non-free".
You were actually discussing the conditional transference of a car that was your property.
But I hardly think copyright laws will go away and it's not relevant to your misapplication of the analogy.
Stallman made his proposal because copyright was being undermined practically,
Rubbish, copyright was being excercised to his detriment, not undermined
and under serious debate in the public sphere. Don't be so sure they won't go away. It's like saying you can't ever imagine slavery going away, or the Berlin Wall coming down, or the USSR dissolving, or gay marriage, or legalized pot, or legal abortions, or any number of things that at one time seemed impossible... until they were a reality.
Anyways, even if copyright on software is here to stay,
Well, I based my guess on the monied lobies that argue for it and keep extending it. You may be right, and I suspect that when/if you are there will be other great social upheavels.
the theoretical argument remains. My argument applies to the Free Software Definition irregardless of the status of copyright.
Your argument remains, in the dust. You've repeated your argument but now I invite you to see the state without any confusing car analogies:
If I have a copy of someone else's software, I have the capability to distribute copies, but not the freedom to do so.
If I have a copy of someone else's software and a GPL license then I also have a freedom to distribute the software.
I think you need reminding of the origin of the free software movement.
I'm well aware of the printer story. But it changes nothing, as you're conflating freedom with capability.
I think then that you know what Stallman is talking about when he uses the term "freedom" but you are taking the hard way in accusing him of dishonesty when you seem to really mean that he is using the wrong words.
It's also notable that you had to use a car analogy to make a point, which suggests that the point you are trying to make cannot reasonably be made in the software scenario; if it could it would be a more effective argument.
I didn't "have to" use it, but I chose it because it illustrates the point while being familiar and tangible objects.
It doesn't illustrate any point, because it is about tangible objects, to which you have ownership rights.
Software is non-tangible and as a licensee you have no ownership rights, and only those rights granted by the licensor (author/owner). This point was not represented at all in your analogy.
I suggest that the first flaws are that the car and the manual are physical artefacts that can't be in the possession of the donor and recipient at the same time, this alone disqualifies the analogy.
You're grasping at straws without addressing the argument. I have no use for the manual. Maybe I lost it.
You made an argument about a car and manual which you own, which does not correspond to the software situation where you are the licensee, as I described above.
Or maybe I'm just being a jerk and don't want to give it to him. Whatever the case, it's a bullshit argument to say I've taken away from somebody's freedom when I gave them a car. They didn't have a car before, now they do. They could have refused the car. They can still attempt to fix the car on their own. That's freedom. Would they have an easier time with the manual? Yes, but that's capability.
But you might say to the recipient: I give you MY car and MY manual on the condition that when you pass the car on you must also pass the manual on. Nobody compels the recipient to pass the manual on, he willingly accepts it as a condition of receiving the car.
Yes, but if you do that you place a restriction on the new owner of the car.
You don't place the restriction on the owner of the car. They place it upon themselves. But it doesn't apply to software because the licensee who receives a COPY is not the new owner.
They are less free. It may result in more capabilities and an overall better outcome, but it's not one based on freedom.
Less free than what? This is where the car analogy breaks down again. As the new owner of the car they may feel less free because as owner they have obligations that you did not have as owner, but it is not about a car. Your analogy is hindering you because it is fault.
With software where the GPL applies, they are not the new owner, they are just a licensee. They may use the software without owning it! A new freedom! Just as they may use the car but they are not the owner of the software and have no inherent rights to it distribute it. But yet they may distribute it! A new freedom! As long as they follow the license.
But they do not have to distribute it (and it is not theirs to distribute). They can continue to use it without worrying about any of the license terms! They only have to follow the terms as they excercise the permitted freedoms, not as a price of those freedoms but as definitions of those freedoms.
But to keep you your car analogy, if they buy the software (the ownership of the software, not a license) from the OWNER or the OWNER donates the software then they are not bound by the license (do you know what license means? It means "perm
I think you need reminding of the origin of the free software movement.
It was in a fight back against loss of previous common freedom, that are not so common these days. Having been born into a greater captivity than Stallman you maybe never had those freedoms and do not feel the loss.
"When Stallman noticed the jamming tendency in the Xerox laser printer, he thought of applying the old fix or "hack" to this printer. In the course of looking up the Xerox laser-printer software, however, Stallman made a troubling discovery. The printer didn't have any software, at least nothing Stallman or a fellow programmer could read. Until then, most companies had made it a form of courtesy to publish source-code files--readable text files that documented the individual software commands that told a machine what to do. Xerox, in this instance, had provided software files only in compiled, or binary, form."
It's also notable that you had to use a car analogy to make a point, which suggests that the point you are trying to make cannot reasonably be made in the software scenario; if it could it would be a more effective argument.
Tip: Analogies are good for explanations but not good for arguments. Often the point in discussion has implications on whether or not the analogy applies. Your analogy may only make sense to people who already take your view.
But in this case your analogy is faulty.
I suggest that the first flaws are that the car and the manual are physical artefacts that can't be in the possession of the donor and recipient at the same time, this alone disqualifies the analogy.
More specifically because your analogy is incorrectly applied.
No-one compels you to give YOUR car with YOUR manual. But you might say to the recipient: I give you MY car and MY manual on the condition that when you pass the car on you must also pass the manual on. Nobody compels the recipient to pass the manual on, he willingly accepts it as a condition of receiving the car.
This analogy as applied means that if you choose to COPY or DISTRIBUTE someone else's copyrighted works, you may only do so lawfully, which means by license or by legal recognized exceptions (e.g. fair use). You may therefore accept the terms of the license, or refrain from copying, or be in breach of copyright.
The license clearly grants additional freedoms that copyright does not grant.
You don't mention what "such laws" you are talking about. Is Stallman arguing FOR any laws?
"Office 365" refers to subscription plans that include access to Office applications plus other productivity services that are enabled over the Internet (cloud services), such as Lync web conferencing and Exchange Online hosted email for business, and additional online storage with OneDrive and Skype world...
It doesn't seem to be the same as Office 2007 or Office 2010 or Office 2013.
There was a bit of a clue in the name, but we don't read articles and we don't even read the summary these days
>> It may surprise you to learn that most people in the U.S. today are not "offended" by simple nudity.
> Yet they still manage to be insufferable puritans. If they are not, they should fight against unconstitutional laws against public swearing, public nudity, FCC censorship, etc. But they don't.
I get it. Because MOST people don't fight YOUR cause, THEY are the insufferable ones. Gotcha.
There is a point that you have to accept that you are not in control of the situation; when there is nothing you can do,
The poor sister didn't want to believe that there was nothing she could do and so she accepted the lie that there was something she could do to make it better.
And so she spoke when she should have been silent.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you REALLY think that the popup will reduce the convenience MORE than REMOVING THE FEATURE ENTIRELY?
And the kernel is also used by Android
I watched such a drama unfold before me. It turned out that those seated were in the wrong theatre.
I think the quest for ever thinner phones and ever thinner batteries is to blame.
I want thicker phones with longer life.
I also think a battery-only recall would have been cheaper, so there is a lot to be said for removable batteries too.
I want user-replaceable batteries
I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I do know what I want.
How would you make the uber drivers go into an area they don't want to go into, if it isn't by offering them more money?? Armed police?
in bash:
while read i ...
do
done filename
They think they found him and want to watch if his behaviour changes when they announce that they stopped looking for him.
So if the FBI are watching you, keep doing whatever you were doing, don't change ANYTHING right now, or they'll pounce.
And the rankings were wrong, and known to be wrong and adjusted by those with no knowledge of performance. And this was so layoffs could be called performance based termination.
To me that means: all Yank and no Brit.
Or: the emperors new clothes.
An American described by a brit to be wearing pants but not trousers would be wearing underpants only.
Sounds right to the American but in fact is woefully insufficient
Of course, you need some other mechanism to discover if those it catches are actually liars
No way do you make that argument in your post. Not even in your dreams:
The meaning of freedom (+1)
Raenex 2 days ago
The The Free Software Definition states as one of the "four essential freedoms": "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this." (bold mine)
Let's say I gave somebody a car out of charity, but I didn't give them the owner's manual. Are they now less free because they will have a harder time fixing the car than before I gave them the car? If I was compelled to give the person the owner's manual with the car, or not give the car at all, am I not less free?
My point is this. The Free Software Definition conflates freedom with capability, and does so at the cost of what freedom really means. It's nice for propaganda purposes, but it's Orwellian in nature.
It could be argued honestly that in the name of consumer protection we limit freedoms for the greater good, such as requiring a list of ingredients in packaged food. However, it would be dishonest to argue for such laws in the name of "freedom".
To be clear: in your post you didn't mention Sweden, or the pirate party, or escrow.
I didn't narrow your argument, you didn't even make that argument. Not even your car analogy mentioned that the manual would have to be given only after 5 years.
I suggest you repost you question based on the past I am replying to.
You are making points now that you never made in your post and that were not even represented in your analogy.
I don't think RMS is telepathic either.
You seem to think that granting additional freedoms conditional on preserving them to others is a restriction merely because it is not unconditional, or because it is less that you hoped.
You are intent on arguing a strawman, probably because your argument falls apart otherwise. Again, I'm discussing the Free Software Definition irrespective of copyright law, whereas you are talking about the GPL in a state of copyright law.
If it is a strawman, you provided it. it shouldn't be this hard to find out what you are arguing.
You were actually discussing the conditional transference of a car that was your property.
I explicitly linked to the Free Software Definition in my first post. The discussion of the car analogy is in that context.
You certainly failed to make it clear what you were arguing, and your car analogy did not help.
Rubbish, copyright was being excercised to his detriment, not undermined
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
An excerpt:
"The bullying of the copyright industry in Sweden inspired the launch of the first political party whose platform is to reduce copyright restrictions: the Pirate Party. Its platform includes the prohibition of Digital Restrictions Management, legalization of noncommercial sharing of published works, and shortening of copyright for commercial use to a five-year period. Five years after publication, any published work would go into the public domain.
I support these changes, in general; but the specific combination chosen by the Swedish Pirate Party backfires ironically in the special case of free software. I'm sure that they did not intend to hurt free software, but that's what would happen.
The GNU General Public License and other copyleft licenses use copyright law to defend freedom for every user. The GPL permits everyone to publish modified works, but only under the same license. Redistribution of the unmodified work must also preserve the license. And all redistributors must give users access to the software's source code."
In my remark about copyright working to his detriment, I thought you were talking about his original proposals behind the GPL and FSF based on the Xerox printer incident.
But certainly in your extract here, he is not arguing for any particular laws or losses of freedom, only stating the conditions required to preserve freedom for all people. He even states that he supports these changes in general. I don't know how that could lead you to argue that he is dishonest and in fact wanting less freedom!
I think then that you know what Stallman is talking about when he uses the term "freedom" but you are taking the hard way in accusing him of dishonesty when you seem to really mean that he is using the wrong words.
Words matter, and calling for restrictions under the guise of "freedom" is propaganda and dishonest.
Words matter, but you are the one who is using dishonest propaganda.
You seem to think that granting additional freedoms conditional on preserving them to others is a restriction merely because it is not unconditional, or because it is less that you hoped.
But you've had to resort to faulty analogies to make the argument because otherwise it could be dismissed as easily as I have just done: A conditional freedom is not a restriction, it is just a definition of the freedom.
Software is non-tangible and as a licensee you have no ownership rights, and only those rights granted by the licensor (author/owner). This point was not represented at all in your analogy.
It's immaterial. We're talking about whether source code must be provided (or "made available") when providing a binary. That's imposing an extra restriction that could equally be applied to tangible objects, as in the car example.
Nonsense. When providing the car, you are transferring ownership to your uncontested property.
When providing a binary based on someone else's source it is not your uncontested property. And without a license you have absolutely no rights to distribute that binary. The media may be your uncontested property but the binary is not.
The trouble with an analogy is that you have to prove your point with the analogy and then prove that the analogy applies. You get two arguments instead of one.
With software where the GPL applies, they are not the new owner, they are just a licensee.
I'm discussing in particular the Free Software Definition, of which the GPL is a particular license designed to enforce it. The GPL only draws its power because of copyrights on software. In a theoretical world without copyrights on software, and hence no licenses, the Free Software Definition is still a valid position statement. It would just label all software without corresponding source code as "non-free".
You were actually discussing the conditional transference of a car that was your property.
But I hardly think copyright laws will go away and it's not relevant to your misapplication of the analogy.
Stallman made his proposal because copyright was being undermined practically,
Rubbish, copyright was being excercised to his detriment, not undermined
and under serious debate in the public sphere. Don't be so sure they won't go away. It's like saying you can't ever imagine slavery going away, or the Berlin Wall coming down, or the USSR dissolving, or gay marriage, or legalized pot, or legal abortions, or any number of things that at one time seemed impossible... until they were a reality.
Anyways, even if copyright on software is here to stay,
Well, I based my guess on the monied lobies that argue for it and keep extending it. You may be right, and I suspect that when/if you are there will be other great social upheavels.
the theoretical argument remains. My argument applies to the Free Software Definition irregardless of the status of copyright.
Your argument remains, in the dust. You've repeated your argument but now I invite you to see the state without any confusing car analogies:
If I have a copy of someone else's software, I have the capability to distribute copies, but not the freedom to do so.
If I have a copy of someone else's software and a GPL license then I also have a freedom to distribute the software.
The license did not res
I can't explain the point he was trying to make. I don't think his analogy helped. I think his claim was that the GPL removed freedom.
Without a licence I can possess a copy of someone else's software and have the capability but not freedom to distribute copies.
With the GPL licence I get a freedom to distribute copies.
The licence added freedom I did not have before.
The licence is only relevant to one who does not have rights of ownership to the software and therefore has capability but not freedom.
He can argue that the BSD licence gives more freedom and he would be right, but the GPL gives preserves freedom to more people.
But he didn't argue that.
I think you need reminding of the origin of the free software movement.
I'm well aware of the printer story. But it changes nothing, as you're conflating freedom with capability.
I think then that you know what Stallman is talking about when he uses the term "freedom" but you are taking the hard way in accusing him of dishonesty when you seem to really mean that he is using the wrong words.
It's also notable that you had to use a car analogy to make a point, which suggests that the point you are trying to make cannot reasonably be made in the software scenario; if it could it would be a more effective argument.
I didn't "have to" use it, but I chose it because it illustrates the point while being familiar and tangible objects.
It doesn't illustrate any point, because it is about tangible objects, to which you have ownership rights.
Software is non-tangible and as a licensee you have no ownership rights, and only those rights granted by the licensor (author/owner). This point was not represented at all in your analogy.
I suggest that the first flaws are that the car and the manual are physical artefacts that can't be in the possession of the donor and recipient at the same time, this alone disqualifies the analogy.
You're grasping at straws without addressing the argument. I have no use for the manual. Maybe I lost it.
You made an argument about a car and manual which you own, which does not correspond to the software situation where you are the licensee, as I described above.
Or maybe I'm just being a jerk and don't want to give it to him. Whatever the case, it's a bullshit argument to say I've taken away from somebody's freedom when I gave them a car. They didn't have a car before, now they do. They could have refused the car. They can still attempt to fix the car on their own. That's freedom. Would they have an easier time with the manual? Yes, but that's capability.
But you might say to the recipient: I give you MY car and MY manual on the condition that when you pass the car on you must also pass the manual on. Nobody compels the recipient to pass the manual on, he willingly accepts it as a condition of receiving the car.
Yes, but if you do that you place a restriction on the new owner of the car.
You don't place the restriction on the owner of the car. They place it upon themselves. But it doesn't apply to software because the licensee who receives a COPY is not the new owner.
They are less free. It may result in more capabilities and an overall better outcome, but it's not one based on freedom.
Less free than what? This is where the car analogy breaks down again. As the new owner of the car they may feel less free because as owner they have obligations that you did not have as owner, but it is not about a car. Your analogy is hindering you because it is fault.
With software where the GPL applies, they are not the new owner, they are just a licensee. They may use the software without owning it! A new freedom! Just as they may use the car but they are not the owner of the software and have no inherent rights to it distribute it. But yet they may distribute it! A new freedom! As long as they follow the license.
But they do not have to distribute it (and it is not theirs to distribute). They can continue to use it without worrying about any of the license terms! They only have to follow the terms as they excercise the permitted freedoms, not as a price of those freedoms but as definitions of those freedoms.
But to keep you your car analogy, if they buy the software (the ownership of the software, not a license) from the OWNER or the OWNER donates the software then they are not bound by the license (do you know what license means? It means "perm
In fact I suggest you read all of chapter 1 http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/fa...
and then you will be ready to talk about freedom.
I think you need reminding of the origin of the free software movement.
It was in a fight back against loss of previous common freedom, that are not so common these days. Having been born into a greater captivity than Stallman you maybe never had those freedoms and do not feel the loss.
"When Stallman noticed the jamming tendency in the Xerox laser
printer, he thought of applying the old fix or "hack" to this printer.
In the course of looking up the Xerox laser-printer software, however,
Stallman made a troubling discovery. The printer didn't have any
software, at least nothing Stallman or a fellow programmer could read.
Until then, most companies had made it a form of courtesy to publish
source-code files--readable text files that documented the individual
software commands that told a machine what to do. Xerox, in this
instance, had provided software files only in compiled, or binary, form."
http://www.quora.com/What-is-t...
It's also notable that you had to use a car analogy to make a point, which suggests that the point you are trying to make cannot reasonably be made in the software scenario; if it could it would be a more effective argument.
Tip: Analogies are good for explanations but not good for arguments. Often the point in discussion has implications on whether or not the analogy applies. Your analogy may only make sense to people who already take your view.
But in this case your analogy is faulty.
I suggest that the first flaws are that the car and the manual are physical artefacts that can't be in the possession of the donor and recipient at the same time, this alone disqualifies the analogy.
More specifically because your analogy is incorrectly applied.
No-one compels you to give YOUR car with YOUR manual. But you might say to the recipient: I give you MY car and MY manual on the condition that when you pass the car on you must also pass the manual on. Nobody compels the recipient to pass the manual on, he willingly accepts it as a condition of receiving the car.
This analogy as applied means that if you choose to COPY or DISTRIBUTE someone else's copyrighted works, you may only do so lawfully, which means by license or by legal recognized exceptions (e.g. fair use). You may therefore accept the terms of the license, or refrain from copying, or be in breach of copyright.
The license clearly grants additional freedoms that copyright does not grant.
You don't mention what "such laws" you are talking about. Is Stallman arguing FOR any laws?
Are you complaining that LG Canada holding back what others have complained of being a buggy update?
Is this good or bad?
No, in the UK you vote for a candidate, not a party, and the candidate may be independent of parties.
A party candidate may choose to leave his party after the election and this does not trigger a by-election, he retains his seat.
What is this rubbish? Didn't we have these talks a long time ago already?
- Office 2007 and Office 2010 support ODF 1.1
- Office 2013 also supports ODF 1.2
Go open your Microsoft Office, and the option to save in OpenDocument is right there in the Save As dialog.
Whether anyone actually uses it, is the real question.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+o...
"Office 365" refers to subscription plans that include access to Office applications plus other productivity services that are enabled over the Internet (cloud services), such as Lync web conferencing and Exchange Online hosted email for business, and additional online storage with OneDrive and Skype world ...
It doesn't seem to be the same as Office 2007 or Office 2010 or Office 2013.
There was a bit of a clue in the name, but we don't read articles and we don't even read the summary these days
I always wondered why Microsoft weren't terminally ashamed that they were the only company in the world that could
1. produce a very good web based email/calendar client
and
2. yet have it not work properly on any browser other than MSIE
surely that fact hurt them when bidding for contracts?
But I don't doubt that their ODF implementation will be equally poor.
>> It may surprise you to learn that most people in the U.S. today are not "offended" by simple nudity.
> Yet they still manage to be insufferable puritans. If they are not, they should fight against unconstitutional laws against public swearing, public nudity, FCC censorship, etc. But they don't.
I get it. Because MOST people don't fight YOUR cause, THEY are the insufferable ones. Gotcha.
There is a point that you have to accept that you are not in control of the situation; when there is nothing you can do,
The poor sister didn't want to believe that there was nothing she could do and so she accepted the lie that there was something she could do to make it better.
And so she spoke when she should have been silent.