A people, paranoid about getting their picture taken without their consent; perhaps, more importantly, taken in the wrong light without make-up: then I remembered, this is France we're talking about:)
Always look beneath the surface at the laws of a nation.
I don't know if you realize this, but you're teaching your own kids, through you example alone, the same values: sacrifice for family and kids. So they will likely grow up, thinking and living the same way.
It's up to you if you're okay with this, but if everyone sacrifices their happiness for their kids, then only the people without kids allow themselves to be happy. Is that really pro-family?
I think the big picture way of looking at this is to ask why does it make sense for third-world, developing countries to have to depend on American dominated corporations. This is what's going on in every other industry, third-world countries are becoming owned by US-controlled companies at the moment that they are trying to integrate themselves into the world economy.
In my opinion, free software is the only way for these countries to maintain local control and even generate true local expertise in the software they use. Imagine in twenty years these countries having to patiently wait for Microsoft for software updates rather than being able to do it themselves.
Agreed. I think the point is that, while we know that these companies produce and support technology primarily for profit, we still have to stick up for ourselves in that their purpose, profit, isn't what we're here for. We might want to do things that are contrary to their intentions, we are spontaneous. We're about the appropriation of technology for *our* purposes, not theirs.
In my mind, and I apologize for getting too philosophical, this is really about a rebellion against the very concept of purpose, that a hammer is only for hammering, that a screw is only for screwing. "Hacking", even if that word sounds quaint today, to me means nothing other the art of re-appropriation, turning something meant for one purpose and giving it another.
We all know, somewhere in the back of our minds, that whenever we purchase a device, that that device was only offered for the sake of the company's bottom line, their profit. Very well, this is appropriate. But, as it has been for some time now, that initial purpose hasn't been the last time the company would try to make more money, more profit, from that device. The GPS functionaly of GPS-enabled phones are turned off until you purchase a $15/month subscription fee. The software we buy or download on our machines have built in advertising, spyware, and copy protection schemes.
Indeed, with most of the products we buy, the whole product itself is *designed* to make the company more money at the expense of the freedom of the customer.
So yes, I'd say that the sanctity of technology has been violated.
You know, I thought this stuff has been hashed enough YEARS ago: you know, when the whole free software concept was fresh and new?
The question really comes down to what sort of rights do you think people should have to their software? If you don't have an opinion on this matter, or if you don't think people really should have many rights at all, or only the rights that they've paid for, then your way of looking at it makes sense.
But if you think that people should have full rights to the software they use, then the GPL isn't really viral at all. The GPL is really for people who disagree that copyright should be applied to software, as it causes an imbalance in *control* of the technology. For instance, with current copyright law, you're forbidden from disassembling the software you use.
I think you can use the classical negative/positive freedom distinction with regards to free software. It seems that we all have the *ability* to disassemble our software, so that's negative freedom that would give us the right to do so. The only thing in the free software definition that corresponds to a positive freedom is the right to source code, which requires the author of modifications to the software to then distribute the source along with any binaries.
So, to some extent, I do see the point of people who would want to confine the free software definition to only negative freedoms: that is, all rights to the software except the requirement to pass along software. But, I also see the FSF's point that, without the source code you really don't have much practical control over what the software does on your machine, which puts that control in the hand of other people: businesses, governments, crackers, or religions/cults.
And I think sometimes the discussion gets a little obscure when they don't see any need for software by someone who doesn't program. That's not the point at all. We all have the right to bear arms, even if you're never going to hunt. We all have the right to peacably assemble, even if you're never going to protest. So the FSF is saying we all have the right to modify the source code of the software on our computer, even if we're never going to program.
Honestly, I don't think it's all that extreme at all, it just seems so in this cynical mindset the computing world is in.
I like your criteria of "high school education" but the only problem is that most of the people I know have graduated high school without a high school education.
I think something we need to avoid is dumbing Wikipedia down just because of the complaint of every person who reads an article, doesn't understand it, feels stupid and complains that Wikipedia is too expert-oriented. Some ideas are simply difficult to understand--that doesn't make you stupid, it just means you need to spend some time and effort understanding the material. The criteria shouldn't be "Everyone with an HS education should be able to understand the material completely on one go."
What really sucks is when a guy reads an article, doesn't get it, and then automatically blames the article. If learning is easy, then you're not learning anything significant.
"So mods, please stop moding '640K' comments as funny or insightful or whatever. They're just from lame 'me too' posters who haven't had an original thought in years."
OMG you're right! You're like a psychic or something. Thanks for your insight into my character.
Yeah. I think C-Insert goes back to those of you who used the DOS Edit command. If I recall correctly, it didn't have C-c, it used C-Insert. It's amazing that they still keep C-Insert around although I think it probably should be scrapped. Keyboards simply haven't adapted to modern times. I'm looking forward to this Optimus deal as it should make possible a truly dynamic keyboard for people to hack.
"this is utterly ridiculous. do newspaper sites want no traffic? how the heck do they expect people to find their stories?"
This is hard for us geeks to understand, but most of these big newspapers make money on their name and prestige. The geek ethos is that only merit matters: not so in the real world. People subscribe to New York Times because it's considered prestiguous and prestigious people read it (I guess the big wigs in Washington are considered prestigious). So they either don't like, or aren't used to, the idea of a drive through newspaper service: people who are only interested in reading one article and aren't interested in subscribing.
I think that the standards by the W3C are actually more forward thinking. Web applications are cool but in that direction can lead to all of the sorts incompatibilities and so forth that have plagued the web since the last time when there were competing standards. I think what gets forgotten is that in looking at the short term, people have difficulty seeing the point of things like XHTML 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Web applications aren't a new idea: they are what the designers of the world wide web had in mind years ago. But the web has broader goals than just making it easy to develop web applications.
You don't get it, do you? Yes, the Republicans are evil, psychopaths and that, why that must mean that your team is right, doesn't it? It's not a false middle: it's that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are right. Neither the left nor the right possess the truth: you pretentious fool. As far as I'm concerned, you zealots have no right to speak of "the truth" at all. All you see is black versus white, us versus them, tweedle dee versus tweedle dum.
The fallacy is called false dillema you nitwit. Fuck ideology. Fuck the fools.
Well, maybe the daddypants account is just a joke or something. Here, try the following email address because I'm *sure* it works: rootdevslashnull@slashdot.org .
Honestly, I think we should start making a distinction between *geek* and *nerd*. Geeks, generally, don't have to be all that bright. I've been to some Buffy forums and most of the people there are teenage girls and, while some of them are bright, a lot of them have a hard time being literate. This probably applies to a lot of male geeks who are into science fiction. So I think if you survey the geek population, you'll find a pretty diverse group as far as intelligence goes. A geek, I'd say, would be someone who has become fanatical about some form of media and tends to exist, part of the time, in unreality.
A nerd, on the other hand, is I think just as you say: someone who is proficient in technology or science. These have to be people of high intelligence *by definition*. A lot of nerds are also geeks. But I suppose some nerds are not.
Slashdot Mirror
A people, paranoid about getting their picture taken without their consent; perhaps, more importantly, taken in the wrong light without make-up: then I remembered, this is France we're talking about :)
Always look beneath the surface at the laws of a nation.
I don't know if you realize this, but you're teaching your own kids, through you example alone, the same values: sacrifice for family and kids. So they will likely grow up, thinking and living the same way.
It's up to you if you're okay with this, but if everyone sacrifices their happiness for their kids, then only the people without kids allow themselves to be happy. Is that really pro-family?
I'd make it an inclusive rather than exclusive OR.
For the logical pedants among us...
Thanks Bruce.
I think the big picture way of looking at this is to ask why does it make sense for third-world, developing countries to have to depend on American dominated corporations. This is what's going on in every other industry, third-world countries are becoming owned by US-controlled companies at the moment that they are trying to integrate themselves into the world economy.
In my opinion, free software is the only way for these countries to maintain local control and even generate true local expertise in the software they use. Imagine in twenty years these countries having to patiently wait for Microsoft for software updates rather than being able to do it themselves.
Hahah, I mean, holy shit that is gross and chauvinistic. :O
Agreed. I think the point is that, while we know that these companies produce and support technology primarily for profit, we still have to stick up for ourselves in that their purpose, profit, isn't what we're here for. We might want to do things that are contrary to their intentions, we are spontaneous. We're about the appropriation of technology for *our* purposes, not theirs.
In my mind, and I apologize for getting too philosophical, this is really about a rebellion against the very concept of purpose, that a hammer is only for hammering, that a screw is only for screwing. "Hacking", even if that word sounds quaint today, to me means nothing other the art of re-appropriation, turning something meant for one purpose and giving it another.
We all know, somewhere in the back of our minds, that whenever we purchase a device, that that device was only offered for the sake of the company's bottom line, their profit. Very well, this is appropriate. But, as it has been for some time now, that initial purpose hasn't been the last time the company would try to make more money, more profit, from that device. The GPS functionaly of GPS-enabled phones are turned off until you purchase a $15/month subscription fee. The software we buy or download on our machines have built in advertising, spyware, and copy protection schemes.
Indeed, with most of the products we buy, the whole product itself is *designed* to make the company more money at the expense of the freedom of the customer.
So yes, I'd say that the sanctity of technology has been violated.
You know, I thought this stuff has been hashed enough YEARS ago: you know, when the whole free software concept was fresh and new?
The question really comes down to what sort of rights do you think people should have to their software? If you don't have an opinion on this matter, or if you don't think people really should have many rights at all, or only the rights that they've paid for, then your way of looking at it makes sense.
But if you think that people should have full rights to the software they use, then the GPL isn't really viral at all. The GPL is really for people who disagree that copyright should be applied to software, as it causes an imbalance in *control* of the technology. For instance, with current copyright law, you're forbidden from disassembling the software you use.
I think you can use the classical negative/positive freedom distinction with regards to free software. It seems that we all have the *ability* to disassemble our software, so that's negative freedom that would give us the right to do so. The only thing in the free software definition that corresponds to a positive freedom is the right to source code, which requires the author of modifications to the software to then distribute the source along with any binaries.
So, to some extent, I do see the point of people who would want to confine the free software definition to only negative freedoms: that is, all rights to the software except the requirement to pass along software. But, I also see the FSF's point that, without the source code you really don't have much practical control over what the software does on your machine, which puts that control in the hand of other people: businesses, governments, crackers, or religions/cults.
And I think sometimes the discussion gets a little obscure when they don't see any need for software by someone who doesn't program. That's not the point at all. We all have the right to bear arms, even if you're never going to hunt. We all have the right to peacably assemble, even if you're never going to protest. So the FSF is saying we all have the right to modify the source code of the software on our computer, even if we're never going to program.
Honestly, I don't think it's all that extreme at all, it just seems so in this cynical mindset the computing world is in.
My karma is going to get burned for posting this.
Wait, does it still work if you don't actually have anything to say?
Just saying...
:)
What's the closest thing to a tricorder that you can buy?
Depends on where it's been. Just find the VIN number and look it up on PenisFAX.com.
What're the hamsters for?
I like your criteria of "high school education" but the only problem is that most of the people I know have graduated high school without a high school education.
I think something we need to avoid is dumbing Wikipedia down just because of the complaint of every person who reads an article, doesn't understand it, feels stupid and complains that Wikipedia is too expert-oriented. Some ideas are simply difficult to understand--that doesn't make you stupid, it just means you need to spend some time and effort understanding the material. The criteria shouldn't be "Everyone with an HS education should be able to understand the material completely on one go."
What really sucks is when a guy reads an article, doesn't get it, and then automatically blames the article. If learning is easy, then you're not learning anything significant.
"So mods, please stop moding '640K' comments as funny or insightful or whatever. They're just from lame 'me too' posters who haven't had an original thought in years."
OMG you're right! You're like a psychic or something. Thanks for your insight into my character.
And we all need more than 640K of RAM.
I think so. It's like lasers--you know? Ninjas and lasers: cool stuff. And force fields. What kind of a nerd are you?
Wow, you must be a shrimp. I'd have an incredibly low bodyfat percentage if came down to 200 lbs.
But he's a geek. Sharks and lasers are still cool right?
Dear The Pious:
I command you now to refer to GPL 2 as The Old License and GPL 3 as The New License. Thenceforth, your salvation.
Yours in Stallman,
extrasolar
Imagine that, a webpage that uses tables for tabular data.
Yeah. I think C-Insert goes back to those of you who used the DOS Edit command. If I recall correctly, it didn't have C-c, it used C-Insert. It's amazing that they still keep C-Insert around although I think it probably should be scrapped. Keyboards simply haven't adapted to modern times. I'm looking forward to this Optimus deal as it should make possible a truly dynamic keyboard for people to hack.
"this is utterly ridiculous. do newspaper sites want no traffic? how the heck do they expect people to find their stories?"
This is hard for us geeks to understand, but most of these big newspapers make money on their name and prestige. The geek ethos is that only merit matters: not so in the real world. People subscribe to New York Times because it's considered prestiguous and prestigious people read it (I guess the big wigs in Washington are considered prestigious). So they either don't like, or aren't used to, the idea of a drive through newspaper service: people who are only interested in reading one article and aren't interested in subscribing.
I think that the standards by the W3C are actually more forward thinking. Web applications are cool but in that direction can lead to all of the sorts incompatibilities and so forth that have plagued the web since the last time when there were competing standards. I think what gets forgotten is that in looking at the short term, people have difficulty seeing the point of things like XHTML 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Web applications aren't a new idea: they are what the designers of the world wide web had in mind years ago. But the web has broader goals than just making it easy to develop web applications.
You don't get it, do you? Yes, the Republicans are evil, psychopaths and that, why that must mean that your team is right, doesn't it? It's not a false middle: it's that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are right. Neither the left nor the right possess the truth: you pretentious fool. As far as I'm concerned, you zealots have no right to speak of "the truth" at all. All you see is black versus white, us versus them, tweedle dee versus tweedle dum.
:)
The fallacy is called false dillema you nitwit. Fuck ideology. Fuck the fools.
Burn karma burn!
Well, maybe the daddypants account is just a joke or something. Here, try the following email address because I'm *sure* it works: rootdevslashnull@slashdot.org .
Honestly, I think we should start making a distinction between *geek* and *nerd*. Geeks, generally, don't have to be all that bright. I've been to some Buffy forums and most of the people there are teenage girls and, while some of them are bright, a lot of them have a hard time being literate. This probably applies to a lot of male geeks who are into science fiction. So I think if you survey the geek population, you'll find a pretty diverse group as far as intelligence goes. A geek, I'd say, would be someone who has become fanatical about some form of media and tends to exist, part of the time, in unreality.
A nerd, on the other hand, is I think just as you say: someone who is proficient in technology or science. These have to be people of high intelligence *by definition*. A lot of nerds are also geeks. But I suppose some nerds are not.