The funniest thing is that probably nearly all of the decriers, if you just gave them a box with a HURD system installed whenever it is completed, would probably be as happy as with a Linux box.
You seem to miss one of the important points about Free Software. Since you have the source code, you can port it anywhere it can serve you.
So if Linux is "winning", if something more suited to some people comes along, say, the HURD, pretty much all the free software can be ported without much pain.
Put simply, once the HURD is completed, as long as it has developers and users, it simply cannot "lose".
The FreeBSD ports system could easily be implemented for Linux. I'm waiting for the `FreeBSD' distribution of Linux that does this. Any takers?
You should try Debian. The package management is excellent. I used Redhat for a year, so I know how much of a pain RPM is. Debian really has it beat.
Of course, if you're happy with FreeBSD, there's no harm to sticking with that;-). Judging by user opinion, it's the Debian package management system and the BSDs' ports collections which are the most loved software installation systems. I've got to give FreeBSD a go someday, but right now Debian just works wonders for me.
But it comes down to this: you do an install (or upgrade) for a particular version on a machine but once.
That's because you're not using Debian. I honestly don't remember how my Debian install process went. It's been such a long time. And I've run Debian 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2...
Speaking as a theoretical linguist, Québecois is not a language, but a dialect of French. Parisian French is also a dialect of French. The two dialects, while they have somewhat different pronunciation and vocabulary, are still mutually intelligible.
I really think that the theoretical status of the language/dialect distinction in linguistics in nowhere near solid. It is not uncommon at all to find a language gradating into others. If you start at Paris, go through the local French dialects, pass over the non-French languages of France (Franco-Provençal, Occitan), into the Romance dialects of western Switzerland and northeastern Italy, and then go further south in Italy, you will find that there is actually a gradation from French into Italian; that is, that people from adjacent regions speak mutually intelligible, yet somewhat different, language systems, and at the ends of the scale you find what we take to be entirely different lanaguage. The same can be said of Dutch and German, IIRC. So I'd go with the old linguists' joke about a language being a dialect with an army and a navy...
Also, from first person reports I've been told (my roommate is a French Canadian linguist), the French, when initially confronted with Québecois, do not understand it well at all. However, one gives them two weeks, and they adapt.
Interesting. So it's just pronounciations and word definitions that differentiate it? Or is there more?
I happen not only to be a linguist, but also one whose roommate is a French Canadian linguist. So although I'm by no means an expert on Québec French, here's a few characteristics. (Many of these I have represented orthographically, copying the way I see them written down in lyrics from French Canadian records).
Québecois has a far more complicated vocalic system. While (according to what my roommate told me) Parisian French has 10 distinctive vowel sounds, Québecois has 21. For example, je parlerai ("I will speak") and je parlerais ("I would speak"), are pronounced the same in Parisian French, but differently in Québec. Also, the vowels used for tons of words don't match up at all with French French.
The "l" sound is deleted in a lot of places. A sentence like Je te les donnerais becomes something like J't'es donnerais. Listening to French Canadian records, I've found words like pus (plus; "more"), and combinations like su'a... (sur la...; "on top of the..."
The word pis, which comes from puis ("after"), in Québec has come to mean "and". So people can say Jean pis Marie y sont allés ("Jean and Mary went") instead of Jean et Marie sont allés. (BTW, the "y" in the sentence comes from "ils" with the "l" sound lost; it is literally something like "John and Mary they are gone", with both the subject "John and Mary" and the subject pronoun "they"; this looks like having two subjects, but it really is not, it's rather than in spoken French varieties everywhere, the subject and object pronouns are trasnforming into verb conjugations.)
There's a few more function words in Québec that are used differently.
Use of tu as an interrogative particle, as in Fais-tu beau? ("How's the weather?" ; from the web site). Here "tu" is not a personal pronoun, like in other French dialects.
moé, toé instead of moi, toi.
There's a lot other differences, including for example, vocabulary. But when it comes to the syntax, Québecois is not very different from other spoken French varieties.
My roommate has told me that, in his experience, it takes a Frenchperson about 2 weeks to get used to the pronunciation.
As for other things, Québecois rock music is really good. Anyone curious should try Les Colocs, or Mara Tremblay, or Fred Fortin.
Apart from what people have pointed out, that dictionaries do give "sex" as a sense for "gender", it must also be mentioned that there is a further difference in what these words mean in academia. Briefly put: "sex" is the biological part of the difference ("what you got between your legs"); gender is the social part of the difference (what society makes of the biological differences).
Thus, for example, the fact that women wear dresses and men don't is a gender difference, and not a sexual difference.
The use of the word "gender" in the subject that the article covers is required by the current academic standards relevant to the subject-- they're not talking about biological differences between men and women, but social ones.
"With No. 316.081 of August 30, 1999 has been filed before the Uruguayan Trademark Office a trademark"
* that sentence makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.
It is ungrammatical, but the meaning is completely recoverable; thus' I'd say it does make sense. "has been filed" is a passive, and the only possible subject is "a trademark".
This error apparently arises because Spanish allows freer word order than English. Look at the Spanish original sentence:
Con el No. 316.081 ("with # 316,081") se presentó ("was presented") el 30 de agosto de 1999 ("the 30th of august of 1999") ante la Oficina de Marcas del Uruguay ("before the Office of Trademarks of Uruguay") la solicitud de registro de marca LINUX ("the application of trademark LINUX")
"In accordance with the official publication from the Industrial Property Bulletin No. 6 of December 1999."
* Wrong: this sentence has no subject or verb. It is an insubordinate clause...a fragment...it is wrong!
Fragments like these occur in English texts. Stuff like: "Compliant with FCC regulations for Class B devices". This kind of thing is used when the referent is contextually clear.
Though actually, in the original Spanish letter, there is a verb and a null subject:
Según consta ("as it is seen", more or less) en la publicación oficial ("in the official publication") aparecida en el Boletín de la Propiedad Industrial No. 6 de Diciembre 1999 ("appeared in the Bulleting of Industrial Property #6 of December 1999").
Cuando llegue aquel día hipotético en que domine Vd un segundo idioma con la décima parte de la capabilidad vista en los autores cuyas obras--y cuya causa--ya discutimos, pues entonces tal vez podrá decir cuatro putas palabras sobre la buena ortografía. Pero ahora, ni se le ocurra. Vaya maleducado que es Vd que no se dé cuenta del respecto debido a estos estimados señores! Le aseguro que habrán traducido esta noticia no por su proprio beneficio, sino por Vd.
s/capabilidad/capacidad/ s/respecto/respeto/ s/dé/da/ (not actually completely wrong, but sounds a bit strange) s/proprio/propio/
There's other minor weird things here, but one comes specially to attention: the use of the formal pronouns ("usted", abbreviated "Vd", and associated verbal morphology) when insulting the addressee. It is usual to use the familiar form "tu" when insulting, specially when cuss words are used.
Still, for a second-language speaker of Spanish, this gets an "A", I'd say;-)
You failed to mention one thing I noticed when I visited a cousin of mine in Houston a few months ago, who had a free dialup with one of those always-on-top-ads ISPs: that they blocked web sites that compete with their advertisers.
I tried to check out a few net bookstores, and the only one that I could connect to was Barnes and Noble, which coincidentally was one of their advertisers. When I tried Amazon, or Bookpool, or a couple others, I remember Netscape giving a _very strange_ dialog box saying that the site didn't exist (and it was _not_ a DNS failure, it was something I'd never seen before and haven't seen since).
Almost right. But this shows the word as having three syllables, while it has only two.
I'd say that the pronunciation in Spanish and English is very similar; if you want to say "Debian" in Spanish, say it as in English but with a Spanish accent;-)
Debían is the third person plural form of the verb deber in the imperfect tense.
The distribution is named Debian, not Debían (note the acute accent on the Spanish verb). By the conventions of Spanish orthography these are different; the distro name is a bisyllable with stress falling on the "e", while the verb is a trisyllable with stress falling on "i". Since stress is distinctive in Spanish, and many words are distinguished by where the stress falls, these could never count as the same word in Spanish.
Anyway, I'm a native Spanish speaking Debian user and I never ever thought of a possible connection.
Groff is not used to create info files. One uses texinfo, which is based on TeX.
Frankly, the problem with info is that the standalone info reader's interface (based on emacs) is not very pleasant to most people. I never ever use the info reader; when I read an info file, I always do it from emacs.
There are other third-party info readers around which have a friendlier interface. I've never tried them, so I can't comment.
[Groups] don't have any valid concerns, IMHO. _Individuals_ have concerns, needs, values, rights, obligations. Groups are only that, groups.
However, we can define a very natural conception of what is it for a group to have the properties you abscribe here to individuals from what your assumptions. A group of individuals that share some set of concerns, needs, values, rights and/or obligations can be said to have precisely those shared properties.
There are, in that sense, groups that have concerns. For example, people who speak a shared language and wish to be able to conduct as much aspects of possible of their community life in that language can be said to be a group of people that has a concern for the maintenance and survival of their language. My example here, of course, is that of various groups of "minority" language speakers. I put "minority" in quotes because the kind of group I refer to is those who are a local majority that speaks a different language from a national minority. Examples are French Canadians and Inuits in Canada, the Galicians, Catalonians, Basque and Valencians in Spain.
Using the "rights" of groups has been the standard-issue way to oppress/rob/kill people in most if not all of history.
I agree with this, but with a slight modification: you should say the "rights" of "groups" (with the quotes around "group"). For it is more than often the case that whenever "rights" or concerns of "groups" are invoked, the "group" under question is a questionable entity.
For a prime example, there is no such thing as the "Aryan race".
Another example, related to the minority languages issue, is that of the rise of the modern European nation-states. For example, pre- and post-revolutionary France. Before the French Revolution, France was linguistically a far more diverse country than nowadays; in particular, local languages like Provencal, Occitan and others were quite strong in their regions. But after the revolution, the French State embarked upon a project of eliminating the local languages in favor of French. Of course, it was all claimed to be in the "interests" of France.
Also, under the rule of Franco, in Spain minority languages were persecuted, supposedly in the "interests" of Spaniards.
So there you go. Groups, in a simple sense, can be said to have interests; this, however, has been historically abuse by claiming that some alleged "group" (which may or may not actually exist) has some "interest" or "right" (which it really doesn't).
There are people that seriously believe that linking both QT and (other people's) GPL libs in your code is illegal. Thus, distributing KDE is illegal, and in fact this is the reason Debian does not distribute KDE. I've not researched this, so do your own reading before quoting me.
I don't know what the precise answer to this would be, but RMS has indeed been critical in the past of licenses that require people to distribute in-house code. (The early versions of the NPL are an example.)
Can anyone clarify for me, is it the case that if you use a library that is GPLed, your code must also be GPLed? If that is the case, that makes it impossible for a closed source project to use GTK for example (unless the library's originator licenses it to you under special license - does anyone know of a famous example of this?). I personally don't think that limiting the amount of software written with a library is a good thing.
You are right that programs that link GPL libraries must be distributed under GPL (unless they are independent works from the GPL library involved-- check out Python or Hugs for non-GPL programs that can be used with GPL libs). However, GTK is under the LGPL, not the GPL, IIRC. You can link non-GPL stuff to it.
Take a look at this RMS article, where he argues for putting out more libraries under GPL. Actually, try reading through the whole philosophy section of the FSF website, and make up your own mind about what it's about. Don't count on/. hearsay to give you an accurate picture.
The GPL is a way to immorally coerce others into making the choices that you want them to make. The LGPL, being non-infective, is much less evil.
Sheesh. How the hell does the GPL coerce people? You always have the choice of not using GPL code. When you show me some circumstance in which you have no choice but to use GPL code at every decision point then we can talk about coercion.
If you give something away, it is free. If you tell them what to do with it, it is not. Free is better.
Even if we accept your very original definition of "free" (let's not get into that; I'm not right now in the mood to discuss the whole history of western civilization from the greeks up to us), it still doesn't indict the GPL.
The GPL basically says that you can't tell others what to do with the code that is licensed under it, if you give it to them. (Unless you are the copyright holder, of course...)
Having said all this, I must add that I do believe you deserve recognition for putting your code where your mouth is with freedline.
I've lived in Montreal for all 23 years of my life, and I've never heard anyone from Montreal refered to as "un montrealais". Granted, I've been living in anglo-land my entire life, but still. Quebecois, sure. Montrealais? Sorry, I'm a Montrealer...
Well, I talked to my roommate, and sorry, the word for Montrealer in French is Montréalais/e...
Granted, he lived in franco-land until 2 months ago, but still.
---
Re:Some of these aren't so dumb!
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 1
Let the people decide where they want their culture to go. Government regulation in such an extreme sucks, and even smacks of censorship.
Eh, I thought it was radio station programmers who decided what a station plays, and not the people.
Anyway, if you say this is censorship, you should point out precisely which kind of content this prevents from being aired.
Well, I saw the other day in someone's web page that she had won the Prix d'Excellence de l'Académie des Grands Montréalais... So that's where I got the word from. It must not be very common, then.
---
Re:Dumbest Quebec law: colour of margarine
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 1
My roommate, who is un montrealais, tells me that an legislator from a rural county in Québec once proposed a law to the effect that marguerine should be green.
Oh, it didn't pass.
---
Re:Some of these aren't so dumb!
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 1
What's dumb about taking away your freedom to choose what to listen to? Oh, I dunno. I guess it's just one of those wacky USA-isms.
Duh. Such a law does not take away any freedom you have to listen to anything, or of the station to play anything. It only requires that the station play a certain amount of canadian music. Which protects local musicians from being excluded from the programming in their own country.
Hell, every contry and city should have some sort of similar law. I wish my country (Puerto Rico) had one; that way, those american owned radio stations that played only american big-label rock music would have to allow local rock bands to have a voice on the radio.
It was not trade that wiped out the Native American Indians, it was pestilance.
Quick, go to the nearest library and pick up any halfway decent US history book.
You know, colonists totally destroyed the native american's ways of life, and drove them away from their lands. Do you believe that reservations were set up in traditional lands?
So, in a history book, you might just be able to find references to stuff like, for example, people who where crossing the Great Prairies saying that, everytime you saw a buffalo, one should shoot it dead, because that meant one more indian would die. You might find the history of the many indian tribes that were forced to leave their lands into poorer, federally designated lands, and in their way over to the new land would suffer from famine and diseases.
"Pestilence" is too proximate a cause to be a satisfactory explanation. If we follow your logic, it wasn't me that wrote this post, it was my keyboard.
Apparently the looting, etc., this afternoon was done almost entirely by a small group (30 or so) of anarchists who dressed all in black and didn't even show their faces.
[...]
But human nature being what it is, a small group had to ruin it for everyone.
And for some fucking reason most people just cannot bring themselves to consider that this kind of thing is perfectly explained as a group of planted provocateurs. Despite ample historical evidence that provocateurs act like this.
Note this. I'm not claiming that these are actual provocateurs that you are reporting. I'm only claiming is that these people being that, or being actively alented and driven by provocateurs, is not only completely consistent with the facts that you report, but with confirmed and documented cases of authorities planting provocateurs to disrupt groups aiming for social change. But somehow, this is the view that gets immediately dismissed and "unsupported conspiracy theorizing", while somehow the less supported view of a minority of people who "defy authority because it's authority" (as you put it) gets credence. Why is this so?
Slashdot Mirror
---
So if Linux is "winning", if something more suited to some people comes along, say, the HURD, pretty much all the free software can be ported without much pain.
Put simply, once the HURD is completed, as long as it has developers and users, it simply cannot "lose".
---
You should try Debian. The package management is excellent. I used Redhat for a year, so I know how much of a pain RPM is. Debian really has it beat.
Of course, if you're happy with FreeBSD, there's no harm to sticking with that ;-). Judging by user opinion, it's the Debian package management system and the BSDs' ports collections which are the most loved software installation systems. I've got to give FreeBSD a go someday, but right now Debian just works wonders for me.
---
That's because you're not using Debian. I honestly don't remember how my Debian install process went. It's been such a long time. And I've run Debian 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2...
---
I really think that the theoretical status of the language/dialect distinction in linguistics in nowhere near solid. It is not uncommon at all to find a language gradating into others. If you start at Paris, go through the local French dialects, pass over the non-French languages of France (Franco-Provençal, Occitan), into the Romance dialects of western Switzerland and northeastern Italy, and then go further south in Italy, you will find that there is actually a gradation from French into Italian; that is, that people from adjacent regions speak mutually intelligible, yet somewhat different, language systems, and at the ends of the scale you find what we take to be entirely different lanaguage. The same can be said of Dutch and German, IIRC. So I'd go with the old linguists' joke about a language being a dialect with an army and a navy...
Also, from first person reports I've been told (my roommate is a French Canadian linguist), the French, when initially confronted with Québecois, do not understand it well at all. However, one gives them two weeks, and they adapt.
---
I happen not only to be a linguist, but also one whose roommate is a French Canadian linguist. So although I'm by no means an expert on Québec French, here's a few characteristics. (Many of these I have represented orthographically, copying the way I see them written down in lyrics from French Canadian records).
There's a few more function words in Québec that are used differently.
There's a lot other differences, including for example, vocabulary. But when it comes to the syntax, Québecois is not very different from other spoken French varieties.
My roommate has told me that, in his experience, it takes a Frenchperson about 2 weeks to get used to the pronunciation.
As for other things, Québecois rock music is really good. Anyone curious should try Les Colocs, or Mara Tremblay, or Fred Fortin.
---
Thus, for example, the fact that women wear dresses and men don't is a gender difference, and not a sexual difference.
The use of the word "gender" in the subject that the article covers is required by the current academic standards relevant to the subject-- they're not talking about biological differences between men and women, but social ones.
---
* that sentence makes ABSOLUTELY no sense.
It is ungrammatical, but the meaning is completely recoverable; thus' I'd say it does make sense. "has been filed" is a passive, and the only possible subject is "a trademark".
This error apparently arises because Spanish allows freer word order than English. Look at the Spanish original sentence:
"In accordance with the official publication from the Industrial Property Bulletin No. 6 of December 1999."
* Wrong: this sentence has no subject or verb. It is an insubordinate clause...a fragment...it is wrong!
Fragments like these occur in English texts. Stuff like: "Compliant with FCC regulations for Class B devices". This kind of thing is used when the referent is contextually clear.
Though actually, in the original Spanish letter, there is a verb and a null subject:
---
s/capabilidad/capacidad/
s/respecto/respeto/
s/dé/da/ (not actually completely wrong, but sounds a bit strange)
s/proprio/propio/
There's other minor weird things here, but one comes specially to attention: the use of the formal pronouns ("usted", abbreviated "Vd", and associated verbal morphology) when insulting the addressee. It is usual to use the familiar form "tu" when insulting, specially when cuss words are used.
Still, for a second-language speaker of Spanish, this gets an "A", I'd say ;-)
---
I tried to check out a few net bookstores, and the only one that I could connect to was Barnes and Noble, which coincidentally was one of their advertisers. When I tried Amazon, or Bookpool, or a couple others, I remember Netscape giving a _very strange_ dialog box saying that the site didn't exist (and it was _not_ a DNS failure, it was something I'd never seen before and haven't seen since).
---
Almost right. But this shows the word as having three syllables, while it has only two.
I'd say that the pronunciation in Spanish and English is very similar; if you want to say "Debian" in Spanish, say it as in English but with a Spanish accent ;-)
---
The distribution is named Debian, not Debían (note the acute accent on the Spanish verb). By the conventions of Spanish orthography these are different; the distro name is a bisyllable with stress falling on the "e", while the verb is a trisyllable with stress falling on "i". Since stress is distinctive in Spanish, and many words are distinguished by where the stress falls, these could never count as the same word in Spanish.
Anyway, I'm a native Spanish speaking Debian user and I never ever thought of a possible connection.
---
Frankly, the problem with info is that the standalone info reader's interface (based on emacs) is not very pleasant to most people. I never ever use the info reader; when I read an info file, I always do it from emacs.
There are other third-party info readers around which have a friendlier interface. I've never tried them, so I can't comment.
---
However, we can define a very natural conception of what is it for a group to have the properties you abscribe here to individuals from what your assumptions. A group of individuals that share some set of concerns, needs, values, rights and/or obligations can be said to have precisely those shared properties.
There are, in that sense, groups that have concerns. For example, people who speak a shared language and wish to be able to conduct as much aspects of possible of their community life in that language can be said to be a group of people that has a concern for the maintenance and survival of their language. My example here, of course, is that of various groups of "minority" language speakers. I put "minority" in quotes because the kind of group I refer to is those who are a local majority that speaks a different language from a national minority. Examples are French Canadians and Inuits in Canada, the Galicians, Catalonians, Basque and Valencians in Spain.
Using the "rights" of groups has been the standard-issue way to oppress/rob/kill people in most if not all of history.
I agree with this, but with a slight modification: you should say the "rights" of "groups" (with the quotes around "group"). For it is more than often the case that whenever "rights" or concerns of "groups" are invoked, the "group" under question is a questionable entity.
For a prime example, there is no such thing as the "Aryan race".
Another example, related to the minority languages issue, is that of the rise of the modern European nation-states. For example, pre- and post-revolutionary France. Before the French Revolution, France was linguistically a far more diverse country than nowadays; in particular, local languages like Provencal, Occitan and others were quite strong in their regions. But after the revolution, the French State embarked upon a project of eliminating the local languages in favor of French. Of course, it was all claimed to be in the "interests" of France.
Also, under the rule of Franco, in Spain minority languages were persecuted, supposedly in the "interests" of Spaniards.
So there you go. Groups, in a simple sense, can be said to have interests; this, however, has been historically abuse by claiming that some alleged "group" (which may or may not actually exist) has some "interest" or "right" (which it really doesn't).
---
---
---
You are right that programs that link GPL libraries must be distributed under GPL (unless they are independent works from the GPL library involved-- check out Python or Hugs for non-GPL programs that can be used with GPL libs). However, GTK is under the LGPL, not the GPL, IIRC. You can link non-GPL stuff to it.
Take a look at this RMS article, where he argues for putting out more libraries under GPL. Actually, try reading through the whole philosophy section of the FSF website, and make up your own mind about what it's about. Don't count on /. hearsay to give you an accurate picture.
---
Sheesh. How the hell does the GPL coerce people? You always have the choice of not using GPL code. When you show me some circumstance in which you have no choice but to use GPL code at every decision point then we can talk about coercion.
If you give something away, it is free. If you tell them what to do with it, it is not. Free is better.
Even if we accept your very original definition of "free" (let's not get into that; I'm not right now in the mood to discuss the whole history of western civilization from the greeks up to us), it still doesn't indict the GPL.
The GPL basically says that you can't tell others what to do with the code that is licensed under it, if you give it to them. (Unless you are the copyright holder, of course...)
Having said all this, I must add that I do believe you deserve recognition for putting your code where your mouth is with freedline.
---
Well, I talked to my roommate, and sorry, the word for Montrealer in French is Montréalais/e...
Granted, he lived in franco-land until 2 months ago, but still.
---
Eh, I thought it was radio station programmers who decided what a station plays, and not the people.
Anyway, if you say this is censorship, you should point out precisely which kind of content this prevents from being aired.
---
---
Oh, it didn't pass.
---
Duh. Such a law does not take away any freedom you have to listen to anything, or of the station to play anything. It only requires that the station play a certain amount of canadian music. Which protects local musicians from being excluded from the programming in their own country.
Hell, every contry and city should have some sort of similar law. I wish my country (Puerto Rico) had one; that way, those american owned radio stations that played only american big-label rock music would have to allow local rock bands to have a voice on the radio.
---
Quick, go to the nearest library and pick up any halfway decent US history book.
You know, colonists totally destroyed the native american's ways of life, and drove them away from their lands. Do you believe that reservations were set up in traditional lands?
So, in a history book, you might just be able to find references to stuff like, for example, people who where crossing the Great Prairies saying that, everytime you saw a buffalo, one should shoot it dead, because that meant one more indian would die. You might find the history of the many indian tribes that were forced to leave their lands into poorer, federally designated lands, and in their way over to the new land would suffer from famine and diseases.
"Pestilence" is too proximate a cause to be a satisfactory explanation. If we follow your logic, it wasn't me that wrote this post, it was my keyboard.
---
[...]
But human nature being what it is, a small group had to ruin it for everyone.
And for some fucking reason most people just cannot bring themselves to consider that this kind of thing is perfectly explained as a group of planted provocateurs. Despite ample historical evidence that provocateurs act like this.
Note this. I'm not claiming that these are actual provocateurs that you are reporting. I'm only claiming is that these people being that, or being actively alented and driven by provocateurs, is not only completely consistent with the facts that you report, but with confirmed and documented cases of authorities planting provocateurs to disrupt groups aiming for social change. But somehow, this is the view that gets immediately dismissed and "unsupported conspiracy theorizing", while somehow the less supported view of a minority of people who "defy authority because it's authority" (as you put it) gets credence. Why is this so?
---