Back in the 1.0 days, it was in every single license agreement they put out. Pretty funny I thought. The idea of running a Nuke Plant from a little Applet, I havn't seen it in a while, though. I don't know if they still have that restriction...
So you're saying you don't have a problem with who he is.. Then later you say you do have a problem as you don't want to hear him.
No no, I most certanly do have a problem with who he is. What I ment by my statement was that Not All Money grubbing whores are bad. ESR, however is a bad one. Does that clear things up?
And I dont' have a problem with listening to him. I have a problem with him speaking for me
intellectual property as such is the *basis* for *all* forms of private property, and must be protected absolutely.
That makes no sense
However, notice the "arguments" used against his ideas, such as they are: "Oh, he's just a Randroid, and he should grow up", "Oh, the government does all these things for us and always has, so the government must be responsible for our country's prosperity","oh, he's just a wacko", etc. etc. All in all, there has not been a single substantial, worthwhile objection to his criticisms of government regulation or his support of laissez-faire (to the extent he does support it). Everything I've seen so far has been personality attacks, truth by assertion, and other assorted non-rebuttals. (truth by assertion = if you believe something strongly enough, and assert it often and vehemently enough, then it must be true)
I think the general attacks have been basically the same as yours. That ESR's statements are nothing more then truth by assertion.
I use that term proudly, and tongue-in-cheek, as a symbol both of the fact that Objectivism is not just a "phase" for those who actually understand it, and the fact that I have never encountered a critique of Rand or Objectivism that wasn't essentially an attack on her personality.
For those of use who say that Objectivism is a 'phase', to be grown out of it really seems like a waist of time to explain why. It would be like trying to explain evolution to a Creationist. Ayn Rand, and her beliefs just seem fundamentally stupid, and that's all there is to it.
It makes perfect sense. Capitalism is the only ideology out there that takes advantage of the fact that people are inherently selfish and turns that greed into something productive for society.
Perhaps, if you were talking about the human social system that has evolved for thousands of years, you might be right. You would not be right, however if you were talking about what Rand was believed in. While people are inherently selfish, they are also inherently altruistic; communism, and Randite objectivism only look at one side of the equation, while denouncing the other. And that is why they will fail. Communism however has a much broader appeal then Objectivism, although both are as firmly rooted in emotion.
What? Rand was very much anti-religion, or at least made religion a non-issue in her philosophy.
Ayn had strong beliefs that were not rooted in science. Ones that, as far as I know she believed with her whole heart. Yet, there was no proof or evidence of them, other then her own ideas. Her religion was the worship of the 'heroic individual', and to her, he was as infallible as God is to Christians.
RMS never said he spoke for us. He speeks for himself, and he is free to do that. We may not agree with everything he says, but he only presents himself as another user, frustraited by closed source.
ESR, on the other hand, seems to think he's some kind of god. He's going to crash hard, and I'm going to laugh.:)
Growth is a relationship between size and time. If additional steps are created between start and end you must, logically, be slowing growth.
Well, logically, I suppose that's true. Of course it requires that everyone's definition of 'growth' is the same as yours. Do you believe that M$ wants the same things that you do? For them, growth is defined only by how large their market share is.
The reasons we have regulations is to stop things from growing in the wrong direction. The invisible hand is blind. And if we have a clear goal, growth in the wrong direction would be slower reaching that goal then growth in the correct direction, so it could be slower, in that sense.
- but it is the marketing department, not the programmers, who run M$. That is a critical distinction.
Yes, but the marketing deptarment is dictating what goes into the code. If your familliar with OOP programming, I'm talking about Objects not classes. MS hasn't written anywhere near 90% of the lines of code on the planet.
Their software, defined by what People interact with Is the vast majority. If we allow software, unchecked as the only form of regulation. Then we allow Microsoft a powerful position.
So, ideals based on Pure Logic are indicative of weak thinking? What would you rather have? Ideals based on illogic? Is this the hallmark of a great mind?
Logic works great in mathematics, where everything is concise and self consistent. The real world, however, is not. There is no simple set of Axioms that define human behavior. Other then the incomprehensible masses of quantum interactions (witch, we don't understand anyway).
Logic can tell you what is True and False But it can never tell you what's Right and Wrong (In the moral sense). Ideals are by definition illogical; logic can only be used to help implement them.
The starting point of the philosophy is not an assumption it is an axiom.
I know this, but I used the two words interchangeably since I didn't think that that many people regularly use the word Axiom. And really, the are the same thing. The building blocks of a formal system.
If you are saying that an Axiom needs to be a true thing, then Ayn Rand falls flat on her face. Because her Axioms are not true.
Aristotle spelled this out thousands of years ago and people still don't get it.
Was Aristotle god? or was he a human, as fallible as the rest of us?
More likely they evade it. That way their arbitrary religious beliefs can be regarded as as good as any other.
That makes no sense. I have no religious beliefs. Unlike Rand.
No. It is capitalism that protects individuals from the irrational or destructive behavior of others.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Only one who has been made blind by ideology could ever believe it.
Well, I don't know that much about BP, but there's a pretty big difference between RMS and ESR. RMS set the groundwork for what is now known as the Open Source movement. He wrote the original GCC, and administered the GNU system. And unlike ESR and his collection of worthless toys, RMS's code is fundamental to a lot of computers.
When your talking about ideas, things are different. But when you are talking about code, RMS's contributions have been invaluable.
Regulation is bad any way you slice...[bla bla bla]Regulation on the internet would be restrictive. [bla] retard the growth [bla] new ecomony [bla] new way of life.
You seem to like making statements. But I don't see a lot of back up. If you want people to listen to what you have to say, you have to give them Reasons.
...we the programmers are against regulation because, in absence of government interference, we ARE the regulation,
In other words, we want to keep power for ourselves, the public be dammed.
I'm a programmer, and I'm for regulation. Not a lot, but I'm not wholesale against it. It should be done very selectively, such as in the MS case. But to say that it should never be done is foolish. If it is truly the programmers that make the regulations, then it is truly Microsoft who makes 90% of them. Is that really what we want?
Can he - or someone more familiar with the inner workings of the ESR mind - clarify this apparent contradiction for me?
Yes, well I don't know the inner workings of the ESR mind any more then anyone else, but I can tell you what it probably means. It means that he hasn't really thought the problem through. He has his Ideals on the one hand, and his Ideas on the other. They are not compatible, really, but he doesn't notice this himself. He doesn't see the contradiction because he hasn't looked. He grasps so strongly to the Ludicrous "Pure logic" ideals like those of Ayn Rand. And this, is what makes him Not a great thinker, despite what he would like to believe himself.
In other words, the contradiction is there, and apparent, because ESR is a dumbass.
(burn karma burn! Lets see if I can get into the 60s on this thread:P )
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't that one happen before this one? One of my questions got modded up to 5, and I'd really like to see if it got asked (not to mention the aswer).
Does anyone know the status on the RMS interview?
Back in the 1.0 days, it was in every single license agreement they put out. Pretty funny I thought. The idea of running a Nuke Plant from a little Applet, I havn't seen it in a while, though. I don't know if they still have that restriction...
Does anyone here know how to register .co.jp domains? That Alldomains site dosn't have it, and I'd really like to know where you register those...
So you're saying you don't have a problem with who he is.. Then later you say you do have a problem as you don't want to hear him.
No no, I most certanly do have a problem with who he is. What I ment by my statement was that Not All Money grubbing whores are bad. ESR, however is a bad one. Does that clear things up?
And I dont' have a problem with listening to him. I have a problem with him speaking for me
At all. Its not about open source, the /. Artical was misslabled. They are talking about MS, and lessing is saying that MS needs to be regulated.
You know, they both graduated from the same collage. But only one of them took any kind of CS classes. And it wasn't ESR.
ESR's point that there are four GPL-like open-source licenses, of which the GPL is just one. Lessig is oblivious to subtleties like that.
Actually, lessing stated he was aware of other licenses, but he thought the GPL was the most important.
intellectual property as such is the *basis* for *all* forms of private property, and must be protected absolutely.
That makes no sense
However, notice the "arguments" used against his ideas, such as they are: "Oh, he's just a Randroid, and he should grow up", "Oh, the government does all these things for us and always has, so the government must be responsible for our country's prosperity","oh, he's just a wacko", etc. etc. All in all, there has not been a single substantial, worthwhile objection to his criticisms of government regulation or his support of laissez-faire (to the extent he does support it). Everything I've seen so far has been personality attacks, truth by assertion, and other assorted non-rebuttals. (truth by assertion = if you believe something strongly enough, and assert it often and vehemently enough, then it must be true)
I think the general attacks have been basically the same as yours. That ESR's statements are nothing more then truth by assertion.
I use that term proudly, and tongue-in-cheek, as a symbol both of the fact that Objectivism is not just a "phase" for those who actually understand it, and the fact that I have never encountered a critique of Rand or Objectivism that wasn't essentially an attack on her personality.
For those of use who say that Objectivism is a 'phase', to be grown out of it really seems like a waist of time to explain why. It would be like trying to explain evolution to a Creationist. Ayn Rand, and her beliefs just seem fundamentally stupid, and that's all there is to it.
My guess is that it was ESR. And I only mentioned it beacuse the code is near imposible to read...
see subject, and who are you to require Non-obfuscated code? Does that mean that it would be illegal to write a program without clean code?
It makes perfect sense. Capitalism is the only ideology out there that takes advantage of the fact that people are inherently selfish and turns that greed into something productive for society.
Perhaps, if you were talking about the human social system that has evolved for thousands of years, you might be right. You would not be right, however if you were talking about what Rand was believed in. While people are inherently selfish, they are also inherently altruistic; communism, and Randite objectivism only look at one side of the equation, while denouncing the other. And that is why they will fail. Communism however has a much broader appeal then Objectivism, although both are as firmly rooted in emotion.
What? Rand was very much anti-religion, or at least made religion a non-issue in her philosophy. Ayn had strong beliefs that were not rooted in science. Ones that, as far as I know she believed with her whole heart. Yet, there was no proof or evidence of them, other then her own ideas. Her religion was the worship of the 'heroic individual', and to her, he was as infallible as God is to Christians.
RMS never said he spoke for us. He speeks for himself, and he is free to do that. We may not agree with everything he says, but he only presents himself as another user, frustraited by closed source.
:)
ESR, on the other hand, seems to think he's some kind of god. He's going to crash hard, and I'm going to laugh.
Growth is a relationship between size and time. If additional steps are created between start and end you must, logically, be slowing growth.
Well, logically, I suppose that's true. Of course it requires that everyone's definition of 'growth' is the same as yours. Do you believe that M$ wants the same things that you do? For them, growth is defined only by how large their market share is.
The reasons we have regulations is to stop things from growing in the wrong direction. The invisible hand is blind. And if we have a clear goal, growth in the wrong direction would be slower reaching that goal then growth in the correct direction, so it could be slower, in that sense.
- but it is the marketing department, not the programmers, who run M$. That is a critical distinction.
Yes, but the marketing deptarment is dictating what goes into the code. If your familliar with OOP programming, I'm talking about Objects not classes. MS hasn't written anywhere near 90% of the lines of code on the planet.
Their software, defined by what People interact with Is the vast majority. If we allow software, unchecked as the only form of regulation. Then we allow Microsoft a powerful position.
seems to come down to three pundits versus a coder.
Yup, Lessing took some CS in collage. None of the others did. I don't really think he "Defines Open source" though...
So, ideals based on Pure Logic are indicative of weak thinking? What would you rather have? Ideals based on illogic? Is this the hallmark of a great mind?
Logic works great in mathematics, where everything is concise and self consistent. The real world, however, is not. There is no simple set of Axioms that define human behavior. Other then the incomprehensible masses of quantum interactions (witch, we don't understand anyway).
Logic can tell you what is True and False But it can never tell you what's Right and Wrong (In the moral sense). Ideals are by definition illogical; logic can only be used to help implement them.
Anyone who would buy into that BS would obviously be to weak minded to ever get any kind of real power. It is annoying though.
The starting point of the philosophy is not an assumption it is an axiom.
I know this, but I used the two words interchangeably since I didn't think that that many people regularly use the word Axiom. And really, the are the same thing. The building blocks of a formal system.
If you are saying that an Axiom needs to be a true thing, then Ayn Rand falls flat on her face. Because her Axioms are not true.
Aristotle spelled this out thousands of years ago and people still don't get it.
Was Aristotle god? or was he a human, as fallible as the rest of us?
More likely they evade it. That way their arbitrary religious beliefs can be regarded as as good as any other.
That makes no sense. I have no religious beliefs. Unlike Rand.
No. It is capitalism that protects individuals from the irrational or destructive behavior of others.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Only one who has been made blind by ideology could ever believe it.
What if what people want is assloads of money? It should be there right.
And what if they want to write there program in pure assembly (or intercal)? zSnes springs to mind
Well, I don't know that much about BP, but there's a pretty big difference between RMS and ESR. RMS set the groundwork for what is now known as the Open Source movement. He wrote the original GCC, and administered the GNU system. And unlike ESR and his collection of worthless toys, RMS's code is fundamental to a lot of computers.
When your talking about ideas, things are different. But when you are talking about code, RMS's contributions have been invaluable.
Welcome to the global community of small-minded people.
:(
Thats going in the quotes file, its to bad I can't attribue it though
Regulation is bad any way you slice...[bla bla bla]Regulation on the internet would be restrictive. [bla] retard the growth [bla] new ecomony [bla] new way of life.
You seem to like making statements. But I don't see a lot of back up. If you want people to listen to what you have to say, you have to give them Reasons.
Real simple stuff here people...
How do you plant yourself firmly on a balance??? And where is this magical land? By your "standard" we could already be there and not know it.
Yep.
Have you ever done an optimization problem in algebra? It's like that.
But, I still think that.. well, I just wanted to use IANALNDIPOOTV in a sentance...
...we the programmers are against regulation because, in absence of government interference, we ARE the regulation,
In other words, we want to keep power for ourselves, the public be dammed. I'm a programmer, and I'm for regulation. Not a lot, but I'm not wholesale against it. It should be done very selectively, such as in the MS case. But to say that it should never be done is foolish. If it is truly the programmers that make the regulations, then it is truly Microsoft who makes 90% of them. Is that really what we want?
Can he - or someone more familiar with the inner workings of the ESR mind - clarify this apparent contradiction for me?
:P )
Yes, well I don't know the inner workings of the ESR mind any more then anyone else, but I can tell you what it probably means. It means that he hasn't really thought the problem through. He has his Ideals on the one hand, and his Ideas on the other. They are not compatible, really, but he doesn't notice this himself. He doesn't see the contradiction because he hasn't looked. He grasps so strongly to the Ludicrous "Pure logic" ideals like those of Ayn Rand. And this, is what makes him Not a great thinker, despite what he would like to believe himself.
In other words, the contradiction is there, and apparent, because ESR is a dumbass.
(burn karma burn! Lets see if I can get into the 60s on this thread