I do advocate total freedom to everyone regarding their bodies and I will be the first one defending that idea, but the labels you were talking about are not laws or any kind of denial of rights. Women do have the right in most modern cultures of having as many partners they want, as they should.
But what we are talking about here is perception, how humans see individuals of both sexes that engage in "promiscuity", for lack of a better word. That has not only social roots as biological roots. Men do not and will probably never see a promiscuous woman as a desired partner, because instinctively we want them to carry our genes and not somebody else's. Women on the other hand will always carry their own genes, and so they instinctively look for other things in their partners, usually strength and dominance, which are usually traits of men disputed by many women, thus making male promiscuity actually instinctively attractive.
This idea has complex social and biological origins and is not totally absurd. Men and Women are quite different in some things, even though they are quite alike in many others.
Everything created by anybody uses by far more material from public domain than any "original" thought. It is very convenient to give exclusive ownership to the "creator" whilst forgetting that it mostly came from other ideas in public domain.
Copyright was never meant as a way to compensate "creators". Compensating creator was a tool to achieve copyright's goals which were to "to encourage the sciences and useful arts.", or to make it simple, to make creative works prolific and benefit society as a whole. Today copyright has the opposite effect, actually preventing people from doing their creative works far more than stimulating them.
Additionally copyright duration has gone from its previous 14 years (which is already too much in these days of instant reproduction and easy distribution), to a ridiculous 100+ years.
As it is now, copyright only serves to preserve the economic interests of rich minorities who stay rich selling and reselling the same old ideas.
Well, maybe I can do a better job of antagonizing you here than in the previous post. I will apologize in advance if I fail to be obnoxious enough to attend to your tastes, though.:(
Real democracy belongs to the realm of fantasy, together with ideas like free market and communism. They are ideas that have the common flaw of ignoring human nature.
Communism ignores selfishness and the need of desire and ambition as driving forces to achieve goals.
Free market ignores the ability of human being to organize themselves in groups and to create oligopolies and monopolies.
Democracy ignores human nature to follow. Most people are more suited and more willing to follow than to rule. The "rule of the people" inevitably ends becoming the rule of a few people who can best herd them, and when these people come to power, laws and bureaucracies are increasingly created to keep them and their peers in power.
Personally I think democracy has one and only one redeeming trait. By design it needs lots and lots of laws and lots and lots of cooperation to work. Its own complexity makes any significant change to come slowly which is good if things are going well. That is why democracy works very well in developed countries, because it makes difficult to change what is working into something else.
We don't have it easier. If anything we have it much harder. The illusion of democracy in which we live today is a much more immutable beast than any kind of authoritative regimen.
The GP didn't imply that there is a relation between lawfulness and wrongness. Actually he not so subtly implied the exact opposite, that the two things are different concepts and should not be confused with each other, idea that I completely agree with, by the way.
Defending a state controlled economy and strong individual rights is not a paradoxical position. It is the definition of "Liberal". Read the Nolan chart for a quick reference on the subject.
Defending "Laissez-faire" capitalism and strong individual rights, which you seem to think more coherent is what is called "Libertarianism".
The other extreme position of defending a strong governmental intervention in the economy AND strong restriction of individual freedom is authoritarianism, and it is usually very bad, as in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia bad.
He may have a lot of radical opinions, but none of them is based on madness as you suggest. You may disagree with many of his opinions, but you cant deny that he accurately predicted 20 years ago a lot of the problems we are facing nowadays with the government and corporation increasingly pressing for control and using new technologies against privacy.
The problem is that it was never about if you can download the latest song, it is about who controls information.in a much general sense than you give credit to it.
Or a single corporation, which is considerably easier, thus the point of the GP. Money is not an indicative of the number of people interested in you. It is an indicative of the capital interested in you.
1) at some point in the near future there will be multiple GPUs in mobile devices
2) there are other equally useful features in the Linux Kernel related with GPUs under GPL, if Nvidia decides to keep proprietary it will have to reinvent the wheel many times, and will eventually put itself in a very disadvantageous position compared to its competition.
Exactly the opposite. If NVIDIA were the only GPU makers they would be able to force down our throats pretty much whatever they wished, but, because they are not, we can force GPL down their throats instead.
Apparently they think it is worth it, as they have been doing it for a while. It is all a matter of who has the power. The tech company that wants the market or the consumers. In this case it is the consumers (or fanatics if you prefer).
Bowing to the will of tech companies is the best way to have very disgusting stuff pushed into your throat.
Sure, if the system starts to send your data before you are able to opt-out you have a point, but that is a problem of implementation, not of some intrinsic difference between both approaches.
Which is basically the same thing, unless "opting in" is made difficult, or hidden in some way, otherwise the discussion about opt in or opt out is pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
I do advocate total freedom to everyone regarding their bodies and I will be the first one defending that idea, but the labels you were talking about are not laws or any kind of denial of rights. Women do have the right in most modern cultures of having as many partners they want, as they should.
But what we are talking about here is perception, how humans see individuals of both sexes that engage in "promiscuity", for lack of a better word. That has not only social roots as biological roots. Men do not and will probably never see a promiscuous woman as a desired partner, because instinctively we want them to carry our genes and not somebody else's. Women on the other hand will always carry their own genes, and so they instinctively look for other things in their partners, usually strength and dominance, which are usually traits of men disputed by many women, thus making male promiscuity actually instinctively attractive.
This idea has complex social and biological origins and is not totally absurd. Men and Women are quite different in some things, even though they are quite alike in many others.
Everything created by anybody uses by far more material from public domain than any "original" thought. It is very convenient to give exclusive ownership to the "creator" whilst forgetting that it mostly came from other ideas in public domain.
Copyright was never meant as a way to compensate "creators". Compensating creator was a tool to achieve copyright's goals which were to "to encourage the sciences and useful arts.", or to make it simple, to make creative works prolific and benefit society as a whole. Today copyright has the opposite effect, actually preventing people from doing their creative works far more than stimulating them.
Additionally copyright duration has gone from its previous 14 years (which is already too much in these days of instant reproduction and easy distribution), to a ridiculous 100+ years.
As it is now, copyright only serves to preserve the economic interests of rich minorities who stay rich selling and reselling the same old ideas.
I will try all caps next time regardless. If I fail in content I can still look forward to achieve it in form! :P
Well, maybe I can do a better job of antagonizing you here than in the previous post. I will apologize in advance if I fail to be obnoxious enough to attend to your tastes, though. :(
Real democracy belongs to the realm of fantasy, together with ideas like free market and communism. They are ideas that have the common flaw of ignoring human nature.
Communism ignores selfishness and the need of desire and ambition as driving forces to achieve goals.
Free market ignores the ability of human being to organize themselves in groups and to create oligopolies and monopolies.
Democracy ignores human nature to follow. Most people are more suited and more willing to follow than to rule. The "rule of the people" inevitably ends becoming the rule of a few people who can best herd them, and when these people come to power, laws and bureaucracies are increasingly created to keep them and their peers in power.
Personally I think democracy has one and only one redeeming trait. By design it needs lots and lots of laws and lots and lots of cooperation to work. Its own complexity makes any significant change to come slowly which is good if things are going well. That is why democracy works very well in developed countries, because it makes difficult to change what is working into something else.
We don't have it easier. If anything we have it much harder. The illusion of democracy in which we live today is a much more immutable beast than any kind of authoritative regimen.
The GP didn't imply that there is a relation between lawfulness and wrongness. Actually he not so subtly implied the exact opposite, that the two things are different concepts and should not be confused with each other, idea that I completely agree with, by the way.
Including the Taliban...
Defending a state controlled economy and strong individual rights is not a paradoxical position. It is the definition of "Liberal". Read the Nolan chart for a quick reference on the subject.
Defending "Laissez-faire" capitalism and strong individual rights, which you seem to think more coherent is what is called "Libertarianism".
The other extreme position of defending a strong governmental intervention in the economy AND strong restriction of individual freedom is authoritarianism, and it is usually very bad, as in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia bad.
He may have a lot of radical opinions, but none of them is based on madness as you suggest. You may disagree with many of his opinions, but you cant deny that he accurately predicted 20 years ago a lot of the problems we are facing nowadays with the government and corporation increasingly pressing for control and using new technologies against privacy.
Unfortunately, seeing our current "democracies" I am not very sure if we progressed a lot since then...
The problem is that it was never about if you can download the latest song, it is about who controls information.in a much general sense than you give credit to it.
Or a single corporation, which is considerably easier, thus the point of the GP. Money is not an indicative of the number of people interested in you. It is an indicative of the capital interested in you.
Backups are long-term hosted data.
Not this one, yet, but:
1) at some point in the near future there will be multiple GPUs in mobile devices
2) there are other equally useful features in the Linux Kernel related with GPUs under GPL, if Nvidia decides to keep proprietary it will have to reinvent the wheel many times, and will eventually put itself in a very disadvantageous position compared to its competition.
Or maybe because they want to keep selling GPUs to mobile devices...
Linux is the kernel for all Android devices, which is a huge market at the moment.
Exactly the opposite. If NVIDIA were the only GPU makers they would be able to force down our throats pretty much whatever they wished, but, because they are not, we can force GPL down their throats instead.
Say this again when NVIDIA GPUs stop being picked for android mobile devices...
Apparently they think it is worth it, as they have been doing it for a while. It is all a matter of who has the power. The tech company that wants the market or the consumers. In this case it is the consumers (or fanatics if you prefer).
Bowing to the will of tech companies is the best way to have very disgusting stuff pushed into your throat.
I, on the other hand, will dismiss anyone that tries to write about something that he doesn't have a clue about, like you.
Sure, if the system starts to send your data before you are able to opt-out you have a point, but that is a problem of implementation, not of some intrinsic difference between both approaches.
unless it is made difficult, or hidden in some way
Short answer: in absolutely nothing. Do not expect miracles from a philosopher with superficial knowledge of physics.
Which is basically the same thing, unless "opting in" is made difficult, or hidden in some way, otherwise the discussion about opt in or opt out is pointless.