I don't know if I'm paranoid enough to believe that those who started the violence were plants, but in this crazy world, you never know...
The provocateur theory should always be high on your list when you are theorizing about this kind of event. There is ample documentary evidence of authorities planting people to disrupt peaceful progressive movements in the past. And no serious indication that it should be any different now.
For an example I am familiar with, consider the history of Puerto Rican independence groups. In the 1960's and 70's, Puerto Rico police officers with the assistance of the FBI committed acts of sabotage and bombings, pressured the media, spread false rumours and fake bulletins/letters, to discredit Puerto Rican independentists. Also, infiltrators were placed in groups to advocate and provoke violence against the state, so as to give the authorities the excuse they needed to go forcefully against groups.
I am not making any of this stuff up. It is all amply documented with Puerto Rican police and FBI documents.
There is a third interpretation, in which this is a noun phrase. You know, that kind of "rice fly" which is "like sand".
Of course, one can make some even stranger sentences, like All black english literature professors know some rice flies like most sand. Hell, this one must be ambiguous in well over a hundred ways:-).
I just thought I should mention that GPSG, HPSG and GB are not parsing technologies per se. They are serious linguistic theories of syntax.
GB stands for "Government and Binding" theory; it is the outgrowth of Noam CHomsky's model of Universal Grammar from the beginning of the 80's, and possibly the theory on which most theoretical syntax has been done.
GPSG stands for "Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar"; it was developed in the late 70's, initially by Gerald Gazdar. Basically, it is an enhanced form of context-free grammar, that is more suitable for description of natural language syntax.
LFG, which I mention above, is another theory of syntax (if you have guessed by now that theoretical linguists are an unagreeing bunch, add 100 points to your total). It is also used in computational projects, like the Xerox NLTT.
The problem with hard-and-fast grammar rules, [...] is that they don't account for rapid linguistic change
The issue is far more complicated than this. You cannot make such a statement without making it relative to some theory of what grammar rules are like and what depends on them, and what depends on other stuff, like, say, properties of lexical items.
I'd say that the overall scheme of grammatical rules for a language can stay on a relatively firm ground for a while, especially with an international language literarily used. Hey, after all, people can read 16th century English and Spanish still.
and people have this nasty habit of twisting grammar to express themselves in new and creative ways.:)
Yeah. Actual language use is really fun, isn't it?
In addition to this, it's very difficult to write simple, lucid grammar rules that also count for the myriad exceptions found in language.
To hell with the exceptions. It's difficult enough to write simple, lucid grammar rules that count for the myriad generalities found in language:).
Anyway, there is no natural concept of "exception" you can apply here; it is always theoretically loaded to call something an exception. How do you make a principled decision about what is a "genuine exception", and what is something your grammar should cover but doesn't?
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
[snip]
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Of course, this only applies to Corel if they are distributing binary-only CD's.
Unfortunately, as stated in the GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman and the FSF consider such things as good salaries for programmers to be "obstacles" that must be removed. Stallman advocates "banning" them.
Huh? Would you care to quote where RMS says precisely that?
BTW I just reviewed the GNU Manifesto, and that's not what it says. So either you give a TEXTUAL QUOTE where the FSF LITERALLY says that "good salaries" for programmers are "obstacles" that must be "banned", or you lose.
Deliberate misquotation and misrepresentation are very vile practices, Mr. Glass.
You are looking only at the transaction between Corel and a customer, and not at the responsibilities that Corel acquires when it distributes GPL software. It must distribute it either with a copy of the source, or with a written offer to give the source for the price of copying. The person who gets the binaries from Corel may pass them on to a minor, who could ask Corel for the sources.
But IIRC Corel is selling the CD's with the source code along...
As you observe, the GPL says -- in effect -- "Some uses are more allowed than others."
Yes, though your Orwelling way of stating it is completely unwarranted.
And programmers, in particular, get the short end of the stick: the uses from which they could benefit most are prohibited unless they give away the farm.
And isn't the GPL's point freedom for the users of the software?
For RMS the user's freedom to use, modify and share software is of prime importance. And he believes that there is no reason why a programmer (or a company) should have a right to restrict a user from using, modifying and sharing software. I don't think he has ever denied this.
And software, BTW, does not grow in trees-- it is written by programmers, who are only a small minority of the world's people. And new software, or improvements to old software, are constantly in need. It is simply false that programmers would go out of business in a free software world.
People who write improvements in free software often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may 'see green' and insist on turning the changes into a commercial product.
I think your reading comprehension skills are lacking in your interpretation of this fragment, Brett. I really don't know whether to hope that you misread intentionally or unintentionally.
The fragment clearly says "improvements in free software"; that is, it refers to people who improve free software. All that it says it that if Eulalia (to use an archaic name) makes an improvement to gcc while working for Acme Evil Corp., Acme Evil Corp can't release her modified gcc as a proprietary product. In a not necessarily generous "what the heck"-ish expression of futility, they may just allow Eulalia to release her patch as GPL.
Implicit in this is that I must insure that the person I'm passing the code to must uphold (or at least legally agree to uphold) the GPL. If they cannot, or willnot, I cannot pass the code to them, since I would be responsible for breaking my contract.
This is utterly false.
From the GPL itself:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
In the US, you have to be of a certain age to be legally bound to any agreement you make. Since the GPL is a legal agreement, it is possible someone could circumvent the agreement and avoid any consequences, simply based on being a minor.
However, Corel is a corporation. Corporations can enter contracts.
I can go to Corel's site and download the binaries for Corel Linux. I'm over 18, so no problem there. I can give these binaries to a minor. The GPL allows me to do so, as long as I comply with certain conditions-- which I do by passing along the offer from Corel to give out the source for the binaries they gave me for the cost of the reproduction. Now if this minor goes to Corel and asks for the source, Corel is bound by the GPL to give them the source.
The GPL attempts to constrain the ways in which you can use the source on which it has been stamped for your own purposes -- in particular, in code you write for a living.
The problem here is the meaning of the word use. What precisely do you mean when you say "use the source"? Does it mean to compile and run it, does it mean to link the object code it produces to your own code, does it mean to take out fragments and include them in your own source files, and does it mean to take a complete program and make it proprietary? The GPL will restrict your right to "use" a program if your definition of "use" is broad enough.
If you look at the GPL, it seems to avoid the word "use", and instead talk of "running the program", "distributing the program", and "making works derivative of the program". I just did a grep for 'use' in the GPL, and it doesn't show up in the critical parts. The Preamble (which doesn't really count) talks about "using pieces of the software", which unambiguously refers to copying or linking; Section 2 mentions "interactive use", which unambiguously refers to running a program; Section 3 talks about storage media "used" in the distribution of programs, but to exempt the case from the license, and about scripts used to control or compilation or installation of the program (which are clearly run); Section 8, finally, talks about the "distribution and/or use" of a program being geographically restricted by existed laws (so what constitutes "use" in this case is externally defined by such laws).
Difficult to say. You can download an ISO of the distribution. Is this ISO a derivative work of the applications contained in the ISO?
I'd say no.
I think section 0 of the GPL applies:
And I think not. In fact, what applies is the last paragraph of section 2:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
An ISO image on a web site can be regarded both a as storage volume and a distribution medium.
I think you got it far better than pretty much everyone who posted here.
However, I think there is more to the article than you point out. It's not the desensitization towards victims of military aggression the point of the article-- it is the implicit, unquestioned and ideologically charged world view behind the sims. Placing the US as the "good guys" who act to save the world against the "bad guys" who go around doing bad things.
The real world is more complicated than a shoot'em up scenario. The reasons why the US has attacked other countries, the ways the US has attacked other countries, the effects these attacks had on these countries, and such, are far more complicated than a shoot'em up scenario. And they should not be accepted uncritically, contrary to what the games promote.
That, and the fact that there *are* often sides that can arguably be considered "bad", despite what some would have us believe. It's hard to argue that, say, the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria -- known for raiding villages and brutally murdering / mutilating civillians by the scores -- is *not* in the wrong; nor, arguably, were the Flying Tigers on as low a moral level as the SS Totenkopf on the other front. There's nothing wrong with labelling an aggressor as such...
You should take the argument to its logical conclusion. If there's nothing wrong with labelling aggressors as such, why are not the US armed forces as aggressors and supporters of aggression all over the globe?
Either this is done, or there is a double standard at work.
I don't see how references to Ho Chi Minh and rice are racist. Ho was a leader of Vietnamese, rice is a staple of the Viet diet, then and now. There are many rice paddies in Vietnam. Vietnam is known for being humid.
These can be used in a very racist manner. Overall, I'd agree with you that these, in and of by themselves, are not racist.
However, it is quite interesting that you pass up the truly offensive bits of what you quote:
Say hello to Ho Chi Minh on your way to hell... Better him than you.
Think of these. Especially of the second one. It carries the assumption that the "you" (the US pilot) is more deserving of life than his/her vietnamese counterpart "him".
What the article is about is not about sims promoting violence; it is about sims uncritically pushing a certain ideological vision of the world.
The article should be glossed like this:
There's this huge outrage over FPS games, because many people think they make kids violent. The author doesn't take a position regarding this; it is merely pointed out that some people do, and that they get a lot of press.
The author notes that tactical military combat sims don't get the flak that FPS games do. This is a factual claim.
The author proposes that the reason why the sims are not bashed much at all is that they promote a US imperialist worldview. He sustains his argument with two facts-- the rhethoric of the games and the nature of the company making it.
I find it pretty disappointing that people here don't get it, and have just launched into a completely off the point "sims don't make people violent" diatribe.
that what started out as an acronym became a word is meaningless as to be an acronym it had to be a word already. If it isn't a word (specifically a word formed from the initial letters of other words) then it can't be an acronym.
Abbreviations, in the strict sense of the term, are devices that one uses to refer to other expressions in the language. For example, "BTW", "FWIW", "IIRC", "IANAL", to mention some in common use on the net.
When I say that an abbreviation like "ATM" or "PIN" has become lexicalized, I'm stating that it has stopped being merely a merely metalinguistic device like abbreviations are. One of the signs you can see of this is that they start becoming linguistically productive-- people start using the just like they use regular words. This could be a bit more precisely stated by saying that they become full-fledged participants of the general morphological, syntactic and semantic processes of the language.
For example, English allows one to use nouns as nominal modifiers under many circumstances: "dog food", "Slashdot post", "web page" (which actually has become "webpage", a single word), panel app, etc. And so, you have noun phrases like "ATM machine", "ATM charge", or "ATM receipt".
Abbreviations like "FWIW", however, you don't see them participate in the language's syntax this way.
Actually, "ATM" is not an acronym. An acronym is something that is spoken like a word (such as SONAR).
This is all minor nitpicking and besides the point. I might have used the word "acronym" inaccurately, but the point is that both "ATM" and "PIN" are no longer just abbreviatory devices for linguistic expressions, but that they are what we linguists call lexical items.
And incidentally, only idiots enter their "PIN number" at the "ATM machine". I enter my PIN at the ATM. I don't say "PIN number" any more than I say "number number" because when I use the acronym PIN, I refer to the entity that represents the number--PIN is a noun, not an adjective!
I am concerned with the attitude you display here. How is it that saying (or not saying) "ATM machine" or "PIN number" can make anyone more stupid (or brighter)?
And while we're at it, if "dog" is a noun, wouldn't only idiots say "dog food", according to your argument?
---
Re:I don't know about you...
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 1
Frankly, I think I'd die if I didn't get to be immortal.
Let's look at this from a valid linguistic point of view, OK?
Huh? I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in your post that remotely counts as that.
But, then again, there are lots of people who enter a "personal identification number number" at the "automated teller machine machine".... No, they don't. They enter a PIN number at the ATM machine; there is a crucial morphological and pragmatical (in the linguistic sense of the term) difference. What has happened in cases like this is called lexicalization; what started out as an acronym (which essentially is an abbreviatory device) begins its own existence as a word by itself. Some of the stranges examples are not with acronyms, but rather with words borrowed from other languages. (Can't recall any right now, though.)
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, and aren't the people actually carrying out the negotiations "special interest groups" or extreme corporatists?
---
The provocateur theory should always be high on your list when you are theorizing about this kind of event. There is ample documentary evidence of authorities planting people to disrupt peaceful progressive movements in the past. And no serious indication that it should be any different now.
For an example I am familiar with, consider the history of Puerto Rican independence groups. In the 1960's and 70's, Puerto Rico police officers with the assistance of the FBI committed acts of sabotage and bombings, pressured the media, spread false rumours and fake bulletins/letters, to discredit Puerto Rican independentists. Also, infiltrators were placed in groups to advocate and provoke violence against the state, so as to give the authorities the excuse they needed to go forcefully against groups.
I am not making any of this stuff up. It is all amply documented with Puerto Rican police and FBI documents.
---
There is a third interpretation, in which this is a noun phrase. You know, that kind of "rice fly" which is "like sand".
Of course, one can make some even stranger sentences, like All black english literature professors know some rice flies like most sand. Hell, this one must be ambiguous in well over a hundred ways :-).
---
---
GB stands for "Government and Binding" theory; it is the outgrowth of Noam CHomsky's model of Universal Grammar from the beginning of the 80's, and possibly the theory on which most theoretical syntax has been done.
GPSG stands for "Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar"; it was developed in the late 70's, initially by Gerald Gazdar. Basically, it is an enhanced form of context-free grammar, that is more suitable for description of natural language syntax.
HPSG was derived from GPSG in the mid-80's at CSLI in Stanford, by Pollard and Sag. It incorporates ideas from other theories of syntax like LFG and GB. HPSG, in comparison to GB, is concerned with making its grammars as useful as possible for computational linguistics. Therefore, many HPSG researchers work in projects like LinGO, trying to apply HPSG to computational projects.
LFG, which I mention above, is another theory of syntax (if you have guessed by now that theoretical linguists are an unagreeing bunch, add 100 points to your total). It is also used in computational projects, like the Xerox NLTT.
I hope people find this info useful.
---
The issue is far more complicated than this. You cannot make such a statement without making it relative to some theory of what grammar rules are like and what depends on them, and what depends on other stuff, like, say, properties of lexical items.
I'd say that the overall scheme of grammatical rules for a language can stay on a relatively firm ground for a while, especially with an international language literarily used. Hey, after all, people can read 16th century English and Spanish still.
and people have this nasty habit of twisting grammar to express themselves in new and creative ways. :)
Yeah. Actual language use is really fun, isn't it?
In addition to this, it's very difficult to write simple, lucid grammar rules that also count for the myriad exceptions found in language.
To hell with the exceptions. It's difficult enough to write simple, lucid grammar rules that count for the myriad generalities found in language :).
Anyway, there is no natural concept of "exception" you can apply here; it is always theoretically loaded to call something an exception. How do you make a principled decision about what is a "genuine exception", and what is something your grammar should cover but doesn't?
---
---
---
Huh? Would you care to quote where RMS says precisely that?
BTW I just reviewed the GNU Manifesto, and that's not what it says. So either you give a TEXTUAL QUOTE where the FSF LITERALLY says that "good salaries" for programmers are "obstacles" that must be "banned", or you lose.
Deliberate misquotation and misrepresentation are very vile practices, Mr. Glass.
---
But IIRC Corel is selling the CD's with the source code along...
---
Yes, though your Orwelling way of stating it is completely unwarranted.
And programmers, in particular, get the short end of the stick: the uses from which they could benefit most are prohibited unless they give away the farm.
And isn't the GPL's point freedom for the users of the software?
For RMS the user's freedom to use, modify and share software is of prime importance. And he believes that there is no reason why a programmer (or a company) should have a right to restrict a user from using, modifying and sharing software. I don't think he has ever denied this.
And software, BTW, does not grow in trees-- it is written by programmers, who are only a small minority of the world's people. And new software, or improvements to old software, are constantly in need. It is simply false that programmers would go out of business in a free software world.
---
I think your reading comprehension skills are lacking in your interpretation of this fragment, Brett. I really don't know whether to hope that you misread intentionally or unintentionally.
The fragment clearly says "improvements in free software"; that is, it refers to people who improve free software. All that it says it that if Eulalia (to use an archaic name) makes an improvement to gcc while working for Acme Evil Corp., Acme Evil Corp can't release her modified gcc as a proprietary product. In a not necessarily generous "what the heck"-ish expression of futility, they may just allow Eulalia to release her patch as GPL.
---
Implicit in this is that I must insure that the person I'm passing the code to must uphold (or at least legally agree to uphold) the GPL. If they cannot, or willnot, I cannot pass the code to them, since I would be responsible for breaking my contract.
This is utterly false.
From the GPL itself:
---
However, Corel is a corporation. Corporations can enter contracts.
I can go to Corel's site and download the binaries for Corel Linux. I'm over 18, so no problem there. I can give these binaries to a minor. The GPL allows me to do so, as long as I comply with certain conditions-- which I do by passing along the offer from Corel to give out the source for the binaries they gave me for the cost of the reproduction. Now if this minor goes to Corel and asks for the source, Corel is bound by the GPL to give them the source.
---
The problem here is the meaning of the word use. What precisely do you mean when you say "use the source"? Does it mean to compile and run it, does it mean to link the object code it produces to your own code, does it mean to take out fragments and include them in your own source files, and does it mean to take a complete program and make it proprietary? The GPL will restrict your right to "use" a program if your definition of "use" is broad enough.
If you look at the GPL, it seems to avoid the word "use", and instead talk of "running the program", "distributing the program", and "making works derivative of the program". I just did a grep for 'use' in the GPL, and it doesn't show up in the critical parts. The Preamble (which doesn't really count) talks about "using pieces of the software", which unambiguously refers to copying or linking; Section 2 mentions "interactive use", which unambiguously refers to running a program; Section 3 talks about storage media "used" in the distribution of programs, but to exempt the case from the license, and about scripts used to control or compilation or installation of the program (which are clearly run); Section 8, finally, talks about the "distribution and/or use" of a program being geographically restricted by existed laws (so what constitutes "use" in this case is externally defined by such laws).
---
I'd say no.
I think section 0 of the GPL applies:
And I think not. In fact, what applies is the last paragraph of section 2:
An ISO image on a web site can be regarded both a as storage volume and a distribution medium.
---
However, I think there is more to the article than you point out. It's not the desensitization towards victims of military aggression the point of the article-- it is the implicit, unquestioned and ideologically charged world view behind the sims. Placing the US as the "good guys" who act to save the world against the "bad guys" who go around doing bad things.
The real world is more complicated than a shoot'em up scenario. The reasons why the US has attacked other countries, the ways the US has attacked other countries, the effects these attacks had on these countries, and such, are far more complicated than a shoot'em up scenario. And they should not be accepted uncritically, contrary to what the games promote.
---
You should take the argument to its logical conclusion. If there's nothing wrong with labelling aggressors as such, why are not the US armed forces as aggressors and supporters of aggression all over the globe?
Either this is done, or there is a double standard at work.
---
These can be used in a very racist manner. Overall, I'd agree with you that these, in and of by themselves, are not racist.
However, it is quite interesting that you pass up the truly offensive bits of what you quote:
Think of these. Especially of the second one. It carries the assumption that the "you" (the US pilot) is more deserving of life than his/her vietnamese counterpart "him".
And that, my friend, is racist.
---
The article should be glossed like this:
I find it pretty disappointing that people here don't get it, and have just launched into a completely off the point "sims don't make people violent" diatribe.
---
Abbreviations, in the strict sense of the term, are devices that one uses to refer to other expressions in the language. For example, "BTW", "FWIW", "IIRC", "IANAL", to mention some in common use on the net.
When I say that an abbreviation like "ATM" or "PIN" has become lexicalized, I'm stating that it has stopped being merely a merely metalinguistic device like abbreviations are. One of the signs you can see of this is that they start becoming linguistically productive-- people start using the just like they use regular words. This could be a bit more precisely stated by saying that they become full-fledged participants of the general morphological, syntactic and semantic processes of the language.
For example, English allows one to use nouns as nominal modifiers under many circumstances: "dog food", "Slashdot post", "web page" (which actually has become "webpage", a single word), panel app, etc. And so, you have noun phrases like "ATM machine", "ATM charge", or "ATM receipt".
Abbreviations like "FWIW", however, you don't see them participate in the language's syntax this way.
---
This is all minor nitpicking and besides the point. I might have used the word "acronym" inaccurately, but the point is that both "ATM" and "PIN" are no longer just abbreviatory devices for linguistic expressions, but that they are what we linguists call lexical items.
And incidentally, only idiots enter their "PIN number" at the "ATM machine". I enter my PIN at the ATM. I don't say "PIN number" any more than I say "number number" because when I use the acronym PIN, I refer to the entity that represents the number--PIN is a noun, not an adjective!
I am concerned with the attitude you display here. How is it that saying (or not saying) "ATM machine" or "PIN number" can make anyone more stupid (or brighter)?
And while we're at it, if "dog" is a noun, wouldn't only idiots say "dog food", according to your argument?
---
---
Huh? I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in your post that remotely counts as that.
But, then again, there are lots of people who enter a "personal identification number number" at the "automated teller machine machine".... No, they don't. They enter a PIN number at the ATM machine; there is a crucial morphological and pragmatical (in the linguistic sense of the term) difference. What has happened in cases like this is called lexicalization; what started out as an acronym (which essentially is an abbreviatory device) begins its own existence as a word by itself. Some of the stranges examples are not with acronyms, but rather with words borrowed from other languages. (Can't recall any right now, though.)
---
Huh? Are you not aware that the Open Source Definition actually is the same document as the DFSG? ESR and Perens just changed the name for the OSF.
---